Why have 25 heros to use 3 at a time?

Once again it isnt about difficulty. Its about being able to try out new builds and playstyles without being limited by henchmen.

Exactly. Couldn't find a better reason myself. Furthermore, 7-heroes should be something only people who proved themselves pvE wise could use.

Maybe if we add +1 hero for every Protector title, it would be even fairer. So a person with all 3 protector titles gets +3 heroes in addition to the current 3. The last hero slot is usable only on beating an elite mission (could be one of following only: DoA or Slavers since these are elite areas of hero-supplement chapters).

Ofcourse, ideas like this are nice to read, but quite difficult to implement - which is why ANET won't do it - they are busy with other things.

The problem is when you buy a game, you expect it to be run well. So they should always have this game on top of a priority list, or they should never have sold it.

I can work with 3, 7 would be nice... even any more than 3 but if push comes to shove ill do with 3. I'd rather take 3 heroes and Rahja because he is the new thread pwnzers.

Just incase my other posts had a magical dont read me tag on them ill say it again.

Its not about difficulty.

It shouldnt be about proving yourself or getting titles. Its a case of what makes the game more fun. 7 heroes would allow for a lot more variety in builds and playstyles.

So im not allowed to use the same arguement for NM?

Some areas in NM arent impossible but they are painfull and not fun to do, and 7 heroes would help that.

Dis-regarding Elite Missions here, whats hard in NM that cant be hero/henched?

If something isnt fun mate, dont do it. I'm lucky I think as I enjoy all of the game in the right amounts but if there was something I despise then I wouldnt even bother doing it. If its a mission, I'd pay someone and so on.

I think it should work like this:
NM 3 Heroes
HM 7 Heroes
Elite Areas: Be able to fill your party up with them (Not Sorrows Thou).

the "7Heroes in HM only" was originally suggested as a type of compromise regarding Anets "it would make the game too easy" explanation.

Not that that explanation makes any sense but it seemed like a reasonable suggestion in the hope of opening up some dialogue.

You didnt answer my question.

You argued its ok to use 7 heroes in HM beacuse you might find something a pain to do, so I dont see the difference with using them to do something which is a pain in NM.

I could then argue that if you find something a pain in HM, then "dont do it" and dont ask for 7 heroes to help!

Theres absolutely no difference!

Good Point. I'll re-explain, it was abit confusing.

My point is that if you want 7 heroes in normal mode for stuff that is a pain, then why bother doing it? Why not just not do it then not have to worry about having extra help, if you want the help to make the game easier then I dont think you should be just worrying about the heroes.

Hard mode is a different case, its meant to be hard but in some situations with hero/hench its frustrating so I wont do it (Vanquishing, yeah right.. )
but with the inclusion of 7 heroes it would make it easier and therefore more enjoyable, it would still be a challange due to half done AI but not soo hard itll make me want to smash my key board up.

If you argue that 7 heroes in Normal Mode will make it more fun then you just want the game to be easier, in Hard Mode I want it to be less annoying in some situations: AI in firestorm ect in HM = No fun. In NM = Not much problem. Going on further in you think something in normal mode is frustrating and you cant do it then adding heroes is just a cheap excuse, in hard mode its to make it more do-able. I know people have vanquished everywhere with heroes but firstly: I get bored easily doing the same thing and secondly I dont have the patience.

Any less confusing? I dont understand it either but in a nutshell:

If you cant do something in normal mode then you shouldnt ask for more heroes, in Hard Mode due to the nature of some areas then it should be acceptable = Move up the scale = More assistance but with the AI in heroes not perfect then its still a challange.

The problem with your "nutshell" conclusion is that your talking from your own perspective; which is biased. I'm not saying thats a problem though, because we all do it. Just look at all historical documents over the last 2 thousand years.

But you have to take that into concideration when sharing an idea.

You may feel the stuff in NM is inherantly "easy" and doesnt justify the use of 7 heroes because of that. While other players will feel certain aspects of NM are actually "hard" or "frustrating".

You may feel the stuff in HM is inherantly "hard" and doest justify the aid of 7 heroes. While other players (like myself) might feel most areas of HM are actually pretty easy and its only rare times when it gets hard.

But regardless of whether I feel NM or HM are both easy, I am still realistic in knowing not everything feels that. Some people find both modes hard for their own reasons!

The use of 7 heroes in both would be to aid those players, and you can't argue not to allow it simply because you personally feel NM is easy enough.

Also I may find NM easy and most of HM easy, but there are still certain situations where 7 heroes would help in both IMO. It may be a situation where you simply cannot find a team at all because the area is empty and while henches are capable of doing the job, their not "fun" to use or they make it more complicated then it should be due to their down-falls.

Its not about making areas easier in NM or HM with using 7 heroes, its about giving us full access to superiour AI instead of mixing superiour AI with redundant AI.

Its obserd that we have far superiour and more functional AI in the form of heroes, being mixed with henches which are (and it cant be denied) stupid by comparison and have no more functionality then "attack this creature" or "stand over here as a group".

We're being expected to use substandard tools along side far better ones. It would just make the game more fun and alot more enjoyable and meet a need that is not being satisfied!

The AI in GW - for everything really - is incredibly subpar and remarkably poor. If you give a hero an interrupt skill they're most likely to interrupt all of the wrong things. The difference with heroes and henchies is that you can control that to a certain extent. With a broadhead arrow ranger, you can tell them when to use it so they don't waste it on say a warrior.

To sum up: ALL AI in the game is stupid. If you give a hero the same build as a henchmen from Prophecies, they'd most likely act the same.

But there is a chance that meeting our need could hinder the need of others. That's not something I'm willing to risk when we already can do pretty much anything in the game with heroes and hench.

You can easily flip that around and say because of the need of pug groups we are being denied.

The fact is we know there are people who prefer to pug, hell we know there are people who refuse to use henchmen. There will always be people to pug with.

This major impact on pugging some people are predicting I just dont see happening.

Good answer.

It's really a trip to read Devaney's responses and see that he thinks he's making statements of fact, and doesn't realize he's asking for the entire game to be balanced around his own individual skill level. The bulk of GW players, which are presumably somewhat less skilled than Devaney, would make the exact same arguments he does in order to justify having 7 heroes in NM.

Anyhow, I will swallow my pride and admit that I avoid most of Asura territory because I just get slaughtered. I might actually go there if i had seven heroes. Same deal with the burning forest in the Charr lands, it'll be a while before I go back there after the last disastrous attempt I made.

Everything in the game becomes easy with enough repetition, and that may be how people totally lose perspective about how hard it can be the first time.

Denied what, fun? You can play through all of the chapters on hard mode with heroes and henchies. You can be successful with them in any part of the game. The only thing that we're being denied is the satisfaction of being able to customize a whole party of 8.

You've stated that it's not about being successful, and yes I know it's not about that at all. But I think that would be the one thing that ANet would be majorly concerned about. As far as we're still able to progress through the game with h/h, then I don't think they'd care.

Major or minor doesn't really matter to me, any hit is a hit.

It's pretty much personal preference this far in, anyways.

Fun, different playstyles, better AI etc.
What would puggers be denied? Nothing. It could just take an extra few mins to get a team together. The actual pugging experience wouldnt be limited in anyway. Currently going solo is limited.

It would be a minor knock to a non critical aspect of pugging, to give a major gain to the main most critical aspect of going solo.

What you have to look at is the gain in comparison to the hit.
In comparison its a small reduction in party forming time over allowing solo players to have all the advantages of 7 heroes.

When he's been listening to "Love will tear us apart" on repeat, 10 days in a row.

As for the 7 heroes, both the pro-pugs and pro-heores know that will never happen, Grey said it, didn't she? Do you really think they have time to do a major GW1 stuff anymore? They've already set their ban machine, nerf machine, weekend event machine, to auto-pilot now.

Lets look at this from the perspective of GWs being promoted as a skill and tact based game.

We have an area in GWEN which is constantly on fire, in the south east part of the char lands called the burning something which is dominated by fire creatures. Lets say you cant find a human PUG to fight through that area, whether it be to access the dungeon, to vanquish or just for fun.

What options are you left with? It leaves you using 3 heroes and 4 henches.

That means you could equip 3 specialised hero water elementals or bring 2 fire elementals and a ranger with winter, or something along those lines. That then means you have to bring monks and your stuck with just 2 monk henches to do the job.

That then leaves 2 slots!

I'm not 100% certain what henches you get from the nearest outpost to there, but can you honestly say your using the best skill or tact you could do by just filling those slots with "what ever you can"!

Does that area offer water or fire elemental henches? Does it offer any henches which are of use to fight a huge mob of fire creatures? Somehow I wouldnt expect so. Henches tend to have very wide ranging builds to suit all situations, but nothing specialised.

You may not "need" a specialised team to fight a heavy load of fire creatures, but its one of the harder areas to fight in. Where is the tact or skill when you can only equip 3 specialised heroes for that instance and you are stuck bringing none specialised henches that might not fit the need?

7 heroes would actually promote this idea of using skill and tact ingame. At the minute, if you cant find a pug, you are using 4 henches who could be equipped with anything and using their skills in any manor they see fit.

There would be more skill in setting up a team of 7 heroes to fight a certain area or boss, or instance compared to just thinking "ok I have no choice but to use 4 of these henches and none are exactly what I need, but I have no choice".

This is evident in alot of areas in factions where you might only get on monk in certain outposts, or you get a protector and not a healer. Its not always clear whether a necro hench is curses, blood or death. I have no idea what the difference is between a guardian or a brawler hench.

Where is the skill in that? Your using AI that could be using anything!

The henches may do the job, but there is nothing skilful about it.

Well what Gaile said was it wasnt in their design vision. Which is a "we dont want to do anything with GW anymore". Its an extremely weak excuse, especially when GW2 isnt around and GW1 will be supported long after that anyways.

They also said they wouldnt be adding extra storage or a party search.
The fact is 7 heroes isnt a major change, if we asked for them without heroes ever being implemented then yes it would be.
But the heroes system is already in place. It would only need updating.

Also when GW2 comes out quite obviousely a huge portion of the playerbase is going to to move over. How do you think pugging is going to work then?

The only way players will be able to do most areas will be solo play.
Now not only will people still be buying and playing GW at this point but it will also reflect on GW2.

However GW2 is still a fair way off and keeping players interested will result in more players to move onto GW2. Now adding 7 heroes is a nice easy way to do that, since everything is already there it doesnt require as much resources as other changed.

Time is a *huge* factor when it comes to PUGs. Not everyone is so patient. Making it take longer when it already is somewhat difficult would not help in the slightest.

And if soloing was unlimited how limited would pugging become in terms of finding people? There is a balance to maintain, and so far it's been working.

We still don't know how hard the hit would be. If we were sure that little would happen then yes, I'd say go for it. But we have no clue, only ideas and "what we believe" would happen.

That's only half of your team though. And even though having to take a henchie isn't "skillful," as you had put it, it's still quite a challenge (fun to some, not to others) building your heroes around your henchies.

To take a snip out of Isileth's post:

Could be rather poor and it'll do either of two things: 1. People play solo or 2. People buy GW2. Pretty nasty move, aye?

3. people leave sick and tired of Anets "vision" and buy SC2 instead.

Of course its based around my skill level because im giving you my opinion. Also its not about being better or worse, its about taking time to work it out. I'm gunna say it plain now, Normal Mode is not hard, at all (disregarding elite missions), if you think it is tough, go play another game because I dont care. If you were playing lets say Half Life 2 on easy mode and you sucked would you email the developer asking for 4 more robots to help you out? No you wouldn't because they would expect you to work it out.

Hard mode is a different case, its meant to be challenging not frustrating which is hard for a developer to do I understand, if they added 7 heroes it could make it better or worse, only a test would see but its not really required. If you cant do normal mode with 3 heroes then you beyond help, go take a new build ect. Stop asking for a walk in the park, Hard Mode is hard for my to explain (Ironic) in this way because I think it will still be challanging with 7 heroes but not as frustrating, I could be wrong but like I said a test would only confirm this.

I dont care if you find normal mode frustrating, in other words dont play it. Its that simple, im not going to do something for the sake of it that would be idiotic. The henchmen are fine in Normal Mode but not so much in Hard Mode, thats why Normal should be untouched and Hard Mode be varied.

What if you were playing HL2 on a hard setting, and it was alot more difficult. Would you then have the right to contact the developers and ask for some more things to help?

By your reasoning, you would!

If foes were buffed up insanely, I would. Same with GW HM - enemies in HM areas (those in mainland, not the noob areas) are pretty frustrating with henchies. Not to mention the fact that some groups have MORE enemies and surprising Pop-ups in HM, which are absent in NM.

I think the person would lower the difficulty setting first (which you can do ingame at any time.)

So they just shouldnt play a harder setting? What about those who want to play HM in GWs and find it hard using current resources? should they just give up and go back to NM!

its called HARD MODE for a reason.

As long as they don't come onto the forums demanding that ANet lower the difficulty because "it's obviously too hard," they can do whatever they want.

If you don't care, then why do you feel the need to come here and post your biased perspective?
If you don't care, then this doesn't matter to you. This thread doesn't need your "saving", so you can stop now.

Well... yes. It's supposed to be hard "with the current resources". If they can't cope, they're obviously not ready to be playing HM.

My post was quoted, so I will response. Zip It. This thread doesnt need posts telling other people that there post is useless when in fact the post they have made about the other guys post that he made to tell him his post is useless is infact useless itselfs. WORK IT OUT.

Let me guess, you cant be Thunderhead Keep?

Also dont quote a section of my post, read it all. Your just trying to be smart, imagine a president said ' I will lower hospital funds by 1% but increase education funds by 10000%' they wouldnt just quote the 1% would they?

Nope, I'd pwn it.

Im not saying i really want them to be added, im saying thats the best way. If you cant do normal mode then dont try hard mode, simple, you will only double fail. 3 in NM, 7 in HM = Best solution, disagree? I dont care. OMG QUOTE THAT BIT AND BASH ME..... HARD.

Its not about the game being hard, its about it being fun.

If you like a challenge then great for you, but others just want to have fun and its more fun when you can set up a total party build, not half a party and just hope the last 4 spots don't agro or die instantly.

I'm a very good player myself, I take great care to set up my build and my Heros. Why should I be forced to use 4 builds that dont mesh with my carefully designed builds?????

Exactly Crom, people need to get away from the idea that its about the level of difficulty.

Hell I play some missions in NM with less than 8 players to try and make it more challenging.

The fact is 7 heroes opens up a lot more of the game, you can try out different team builds and playstyles. Currently you are limited by having 4/8 builds chosen for you. Not only are they for the most part very poor but they also are set. So you are forced into building around them. This seriousely limits gameplay.


My point was even if people have to spend an extra 5 minutes forming a PuG, the actual PuG isnt limited.
Solo play is, no matter if I spent 5 hours in an outpost I wouldnt get a team of 7 heroes.

Actually we do know to a point.
All those people who dont enjoy solo play wont switch.
All those people who prefer PuGs wont switch.

It will not kill off Pugging, therefore there will be others to pug with.

Your suggesting that having fixed builds and limits upon your playstyle is fun?
How about we make all PuG teams take 4 set henchmen builds. Would that go down well?

GW will continue to sell even when GW2 is out. There are people who just wont enjoy GW2, people who still havent purchased all of the GW campaigns, people who have never played it before.

If people cant PuG and are limited in solo play do you think its going to do well?

Listen, kiddo, I think you need to go refresh your memory about what an "opinion" is. Because it seems to me that you think an opinion is when you say any fool thing you want, and nobody can tell you you're wrong.

These aren't opinions. They are attempts to describe an objective reality. But they fail, because you make no attempt at objectivity (i.e., separating yourself as much as possible from your own desires and preferences).

Better luck next time.

And there are still the iffy cases and people switching over who were fine before.

I notice how you say "it will not kill off pugging," which of course it won't. But how much will it hit? How many will there be able to pug with? /shrug

They can still have four people to bring PvE skills, so it evens out : P (yes a joke.)

Depends. Given on how limited PvE itself is (not very much,) some could argue that yeah they'll be fine.

In all seriousness, ANet has done many a thing to encourage others to buy their products: Having material storage Faction exclusive, having heroes only in GW:EN and NF, Insignias in NF, etc.

You'll have noticed that a few things in that list were later added universally to the game. So hopefully ANet will add recruitable heroes in the other campaigns.

Do you really want to PUG with people that would rather not play with you in the first place? These are the only people that will switch.

You can go even further than that and ask are they even pugging right now?

Only if he was bitter about it.

Who will be left? The people who want to pug.

Obviously anyone that disagrees with you must be a noob, because the world revolves around you. That mish can be H/Hed even in HM, as evident by my Guardian of Tyria.
The other parts of your post doesn't matter. You mentioned you don't care. Since you don't, you don't need to come in this thread and keep the flame burning.
And yes, the media would actually quote that. You overestimate the intelligence of the media.
Stop posting about this if you don't care. No one really cares about your "I AM SO LEET I DON'T NEED 7 HEROES LOLOLOL!!!11" Brag somewhere else.

QFT !