Why have 25 heros to use 3 at a time?

It would be less powerful then using 7 humans. If that is so overpowered, How come Anet are giving us human players leet hax PVE only skills?

Heros cant use PVE skills, people can. I think that is balanced enough for allowing 7 heroes.

To anyone who is claiming heroes ruined PuGs...

I went to the Fire Islands earlier, just for the hell of it. I see a ranger talking in local chat, trying to make a party for Final Blow. I sit there for awhile. 10 minutes later he is still looking for a group. So I think what the hell, I'll join him. When I join, there is 2 R/E, 2 W/Mo, and an E. So I just tell them I'm going to add my hero monks, and I do.

Once we leave town, both warriors stand there casting their mending. After the first group...the E and a W/Mo ask me what a P stands for, so I tell them. We keep going, plowing through because it is easy anyway. Eventually, close to the end, the Ranger starts complaining telling us to slow the RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO down. I ask why, we are rolling over them anyway. His response was....because my Meteor Shower is the majority of my damage. Now, I understand that not everyone has a pathetic build, but 3 people out of that team did, and 2 of them didn't know what a P was.

This is why PuGs are dead, not because of heroes.

The argument has been beaten to death in countless threads. Not once have I seen conclusive evidence that heroes killed PuGs. Rather, PuGs killed themselves. Many of the solo players have been solo since before Heroes were introduced, for many of the reasons already stated in this thread.

The only argument anyone has given for PuGing are the 'social' benefits. However, people who have limited time or simply want to get things done will never care about playing with other people, with or without heroes. The only thing that Heroes changed is that soloing became somewhat easier than with only henchmen.

The argument that PuG players need people to teach them simply doesn't hold water. A lot of the better players taught themselves, using resources available to anyone (the wiki, for instance). Furthermore, even if the argument were valid, the amount of work involved in teaching the masses is disproportionate to the overall gains the community is likely to see; the problem is compounded by the fact that poorer players aren't receptive to advice and frankly don't care to get better.

To date, I still haven't seen a sound, reasonable argument for not allowing 7 heroes. I agree that the main reason Anet appears to be doing it is to hold on to their last few incentives for multiplayer gaming, but I think this is both misguided and ineffective. Misguided because there was never anything wrong with solo play to begin with, and ineffective because PuGing already appears to be the minority preference.

/signed

I stopped PUG-ing during Prophecies; somehow I got sick of penises and boobs being drawn all over the mini-map, along with general immaturity. While I don't care too much about it, the option would certainly be nice to have.

Honestly I think the only reason they say three i because they thought that would the number that could be managable by one person.. as in, you have the ability to flag them here and there and use the skills ect.

Still what they COULD do I feel.. is have the first three heroes in your party be controlled by you and the rest of your Heroes well use the skills you have set but use their own AI.

Basically what I'm saying is.. I would like the choice to pick between Jora or Devona. Furthermore it would be cool to see them with the weapon I gave them and the armor I have chosen for them. That is my thought on the subject.

lmao

That was hilarious, but mainly funny because of how true it is.

Okay, I'm actually going to answer the question that was asked and not comment on using henchies vs heroes.

The reason to have 25 heroes and only use 3 [or even 7] at a time is builds.
I have Olias as a MM. He has runes for a MM and weapons for a MM. Souzuke is a searing flames ele and has fire runes and fire weapons. Dunkoro is a Light of Deliverance monk and Tahlkora is a Restore Conditions prot. They are runed up to get maximum advantage from their builds, unlike my poor characters who change builds at will and so need to be more generalised in terms of runes and weapons. Or carry spares...

I keep the hero builds the same across all characters, so when I want a searing flames ele I can just reach for one.

Being able to spec your heroes in detail is great. And it helps you customise your teams when you need to.

Well I think it should be 30 Because we should have the choice to fill the 3 spot with 3 same class. And at least 10 because we have 10 classes. I strongly agree we should be able to use 7 heros. It should be social game. I hate humans There are so many fool people in world. I dont want to try to covince them that we shouldnt lure everyone at once.

/signed

I think increasing the number of heroes beyond the current limit of three is a great idea and it would give me the freedom to "Play the game the way I want to play it", instead of anets vision of how I should play. There are many many times that I would like to do a certain mission in HM and there are simply no people around to PUG with, and then when I do get a PUG group, the vast majority of the time they really suck, I have also ran across lots of people that will not let you in their group if you are not running a cookie cutter build. I was recently kicked from a pug because the leader decided that a ranger with self heals was noobish and stupid.

I realize that with the addition of more heroes, the interface may become clogged, and for that reason, I would be happy just being able to set skills, weapons and armor for any new heroes.

"Why have 25 heros to use 3 at a time?"

Imagine if we had ONLY 3 heroes......Guru/Anet customer service server(s) would have crashed by HORDES of whining players.

So in order to avoid that situation Anet wisely decided that the more heroes players can use the less they would complain.

And as a result....... the snake bites its tale & the OP created this thread....

Life is so funny folks.

This post wins the thread. I would give you an Award, but dont have anything... Oh yes I do, have some of these, you deserve them...

I've beaten this horse to a bloody pulp over on GWOnline, but I've got a couple more whacks left in the old stick...

I can not join a PuG when there is no PuG to join. In many advanced missions areas (Fire Islands, Eternal Grove, etc) *no one* is there -- particularly for Hard Mode.

I tried looking for a new guild, but didn't want to leave existing friends (who have no interest in HM) behind. My three attempts at joining other guilds involved demands that I faction farm, requests from guild leaders for money, and guilds that vanished overnight. Not much better than PuGs.

ANet's attitude on this issue is unrealistic and counter-productive. We can ALREADY play with one human and six heros by using two accounts; there is NO NEED for extra controls bars or flags. I'll PuG when I can find a PuG; otherwise, I want the rich strategic ability to design my entire team and its synergies.

Either give us full heroes, or remove heros and hench from the game.

agree with above post,was funny^^

but yeah,i pugged at the start of prophicies at around frost gate i was annoywed be leavers so henched my way through most of the game of prophices,got stuck in ice caves, got factions did most of that with henchmen, pugs kept failing, when i got to gyala.... i spent 10 tries with pugs, ages waiting for a group, most of the pugs last maybe 10 minites MAX. i spent 4 tries with henchement got masters, never pugged again till GoP, as i had no rank, havent pugged since febuary.

its easy to blame npcs,but really human personality is
FLaming,non-wiki builds,and people not taking sins because they are not seen as good, also happens to other profs.

I dont use sins, dervs or warriors in PVE cos they dont do as much damage as my elly + ranger way. Well, I use Zenmai as a Ranger.

Im Anti-melee, wont see it on my team. Obviously I can never get a Pug without someone crying 'OMG we needs a tank noes!!!' And then having to get a mending wammo with the leet haxxor Gash and Severe artery! I can see the Afflicted running for their lives at the thought of wammos.

totally agree with you for not taking war derv assa etc as a hero in your team. But they dont do much damage....? You know how to play melee characters?

playing as a human warrior? W/R build : tigers fury + dragon slash + 5 adrenaline based sword skills is pretty much contineus high damage no recharge time or energy problems. although heros cant play that...

as for the dervish stop taking avatar of balthazar jeez!! take avatar of lyssa + the 2 PvE only skills and heart of fury + chilling victory + lyssas assault + victorious sweep. <<<I'm pretty sure this build does more damage then any ele build besides better recharge and energy control. anyways the heros cant play this build as well

offcourse 16 in sword and 16 in scythe mastery

I know how to play a good Hammer Basher W or Thumper R, and know some very good sin and Derv builds for PVP.

But what I mean is 90% of melee players in PVE are completely useless. How many hammer warriors do you encounter when LFG in PVE? The all have mending gash and sever artery

And I said they dont do as much damage, not that they dont do any damage. SF + Critical barrage >>> Melee anyday in PVE.

I never even use necros in PVE, Yes, Ive never needed an MM except for Dzagonur Bastion where I used 2 MMs and a Rit to hold one side of the map.

Although I never use warriors, I have a customised Kanaxais Edge on Koss and a Kanaxais Mallet on Goren lol. They dropped for me in the same run so I gave them to my heroes

LOL i use 4-5 physicals, but casters do well too. It really dioenst matter much, except for the one who makes the build

While mending is baaad, what the hell do you have against gash/sever? Seriously.

I just prefer this build for swords.

[skill]Barbarous Slice[/skill][skill]Jaizhenju Strike[/skill][skill]Pure Strike[/skill][skill]Quivering Blade[/skill][skill]plague touch[/skill][skill]sun and moon slash[/skill][skill]"watch yourself!"[/skill]

Perhaps the reason for so many under-educated people in pugs is heroes. I mean, couldn't the reason be that everyones so bad, is that people can't give them a little criticism when they are using hero/hench party. This has been for a long time, so the general skill-intelligence of the public has suffered. After all, heroes don't know when their "master" is sucking up a storm in terms of build selection.

Of course we all screwed now, because no one wants to teach a person who thinks having a primary warrior bonding is a good thing. (had to put my experience in, he kept running out of energy ok)

I think perhaps Arena Net wants to hold onto every little shred of what "multiplayer" aspects they have left in this game, excluding pvp of course.

The problem is it takes too much time to get someone to change their skillbars, and most of these players dont even have the right skills. also a lot of people wont listen.

I remember once when I played with a Ranger In HM. When I asked him to reskill he replied 'Dont think that I have the same skills that you do'. I just thought WTF and asked if he could buy them to improve his bar. Then he replies 'No cos I dont need them'. Some people just exist to be useless and annoying beyond useless and annoying.

By thread page 8, everything has probably been said. But! Hell, I might as well, anyway. The fact is that people who prefer to play with NPCs already play with heroes/henchmen, and it's already the direction the game has headed to and settled in, if unintentionally. The inclusion of henchmen in the game has made grouping not 100% necessary from the start-- i.e. the game could have been designed as human player only. Also, the prospect of solo (but still immensely social through shared districts and chat) play was a huge draw for many people, including myself.

Considering that such an enormous amount of people already play PvE with three heroes and four henchmen, allowing seven heroes doesn't seem like such a drastic measure, especially since we have a ridiculous-long list of them available. I've only ever bothered PuGing for missions. Doing it for every single little quest in the game is too inconvenient to even consider, especially when players are spread out over such a vast map. Since I only go questing with NPCs anyway (unless some friends are on, but that doesn't happen much nowadays), it would be nice --and very fun-- to be able to customize and experiment with all of the builds instead of taking boring, static henchmen that usually suck. Micro-managing wouldn't be a problem for me since I don't use it a lot anyhow. The flagging situation could be easily improvised.

Oh god, I just wrote an essay.

Also, Meteor Shower Ranger FTW!!

I have used heroes and/or henchmen completely since Factions. I beat Factions in like 1 day with just henchmen.

Who cares A-net, just let us use all 7 heroes. It didn't help that your grouping system for players has been horrible for 2 years now. :P

cos if you could use 25 heros you would pwn

I agree

People who prefer to ( or through circumstance ) play with heroes and henchies are going to continue to do so.

Instead of ignoring the situation and giving us very little in the way of any sort of excuse as to why we cant have 7 heroes why not go in the opposite direction entirely? Make it advantageous to form full groups of live players: increase loot drops and increase the chances of better drops (purple / gold ) in groups of full live players. At least that would encourage some people to want to PUG more often.

rofl! qft

penis artists are very common in pugs.

if not 7 heroes how about 4 anet? pretty please

edit. i remember someone drawing the most detailed penis on the minimap, he had it down to a science, hairy testicles and all, lol. i think thats the only time i actually lol when someone decided to use the minimap as their canvas for penis art.

The original henchmen system was implemented as "replacements" for a healer, etc. to save time in the event a group could not get a full-human team. ArenaNet forgot to factor in the reality that people who play MMOs tend to be anti-social...

I see no compelling argument against 7 Heroes.

I might start playing the game again if I could use 7 heroes at a time

That, my friend, is an idea.

/signed

Everyone who argues it'd make pve too easy. So what? What does making the game easy for the people who spent time to carefully plan out an entire team build have to do with you? So they finished a dungeon in 20 mins instead of an hour you did. How does that effect anyone except that team?

Make it so you'll get alot less drops taking heroes and alot more people will go to pug if theirs an incentive to go and get items.

Having 7 heroes doesn't change anything nor does it effect anyone. People say it'd draw them away from pugs, make it so pugs get more items. They already take hench and heroes anyways.

A.net has absolutely no reason to not allow 7 heroes. They just don't want to change it.

Their is only pluses to being able to have 7 heroes. No more failing from necromancers with minions, rangers with meteorshower and other nukes, monks who only use healing breeze. Nothing bad could come from allowing 7 heroes because it won't effect anyone else but them (they will have a great time beating hard places quickly with a hero team).

Not to mention, people who play at bad times have no people to party with. Or they just don't feel like getting those horrible players to fail a mission again and again.

So a.net, please make a statement as to why you don't let us have 7 heroes. Something that proves their is an actual downside. Then we can tell you how to fix it so theirs still an upside to counter that and we can all be happy with all hero teams.

BRAVO!!!!! Will ANet listen though?...no way....they still want it to be a COMMUNITY game....let's see I'm in Pogahn Passage right now looking for a group that is capable of doing the mission....huh....NOBODY....hmmmm...take my heroes/hench and get master FAST!!!!!!!!!!!!

ALSO...I have 11 chars...all of them have every hero available (except GW:EN heroes)....all heroes have ruined armor and most carry Green weapons or maxed golds. I have over 700k in gold and prob about another 2 million in gold if i sold material (diamonds, ecto, etc).

I PLAY SOLO....I have been in guilds before and had fun, but then FACTIONS ruined the guilds that I was in with all the in-fighting about faction farming, so I left and haven't joined another, I started my own guild that includes me and my brother. We work different hours though and don't get to play much together. All the other people that I use to enjoy playing with have moved onto WoW and such. So yes ANet....I'm a solo player and now will have 20+ heroes that are maxed out...yet I can pnly use 3 at a time?

(Merged by Dralspire)

I know theirs a huge thread right there but gaile might not want to sort through all those pages.

We would like an official response as to why 7 heroes are not allowed.

We are hoping that it is for a good reason as in not because (it'd make pve too easy, people wouldn't play with other people"they already do with hench+heroes").

There is no downside for the rest of the guild wars community if we decide to play solo (Like we have done with henchman). Also, anet should reward people for using 7 heroes and customizing it specifically for area xxx or dungeon xxx and using all that time and strategizing for a great build.

If your afraid so much you could give added item drops if no heroes/ hench are in a team, then people would have incentive to play pugs (I didn't come up with this idea, someone else did).

Heck, you can even semi nerf drop rates for people with full hero teams we don't care. We just want to do what you intended us to do. Some people can't be bothered to waste 30 minutes finding a group of people to do xx mission or xx quest. Sometimes hench and heroes just doesn't give us enough leeway to get through a tough area or mission.

So, let the people who solo have the opportunity to use 7 heroes instead of making us ally up with another person and their mo/n hero with minion skills.

There really is no downside to this at all. Pve= too easy for them? That should be a bonus, they spent all that time making up a good team for that situation (I thought this game was about perfect strategy and trying new builds to take on certain areas). You aren't losing people from not playing with pugs because the people who want to play with others do, the ones who don't don't play with others already.

So please gaile or someone else from a.net.

We would like a logical answer as to why this is not implemented. Not just because pve would be too easy.

Please note. I am not whining because it is not implemented. Or trying to say this in any kind of demanding and bad tone. I just am trying to prove points that it seems like the positives really outweigh the alleged negatives to this change. I have the utmost respect for a.net and know this feature most likely won't be implemented.

I would just like a true statement that would describe exactly why it is not being put in.

I'm just curious, all the complaints about only being able to use 3 when you have 25, if/when they change it to 7, what will you complain about then?

" Why have 25 heros to use 7 at a time? I suggest that we are allowed to swap mid-mission."

(Merged by Dralspire)

I am pretty sure she has mentioned why.

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10166467

Edit: Added thread where Gaile says why they can't make full hero teams.

(Merged by Dralspire)

I stopped reading at the first few lines. I apologize, but I have read the larger thread in questions -- circular discussion and all. I've linked to it in the Community Summary. This is well and truly an issue that does not need a res cast upon it.

Within that thread, we have (I have) relayed the response and the reason for why the game does not offer all-hero parties. I totally understand that some players disagree with the designers' decision, and I know that some will continue to want to have all-hero parties. However, according to James Phinney, that is not going to happen because it is not within the design vision of the game and the game is not designed to support that mechanic. And no, the game will not be redesigned to allow this mechanic, because changing the game will then impact other elements, creating essential imbalance and disconnect of both design philosophy and logic.

In the end, there is nothing more I can say to address the question and there is absolutely no point in repeating what has already been said in the other thread(s). Thanks to 1 Up and 2 Down's link, you can read our many answers which I will not be repeating, defending, or expanding upon.

Thank you for understanding.

(Merged by Dralspire)

I would actually like to hear a reason that makes sense. When heroes first came out I believed the limit had something to do with PvP play - since there is a limit in some areas of PvP for the entire team, this is no longer the case.

If the reason is for us to play with other people, laughable since there are so many "solo" quests, mini games, tournaments in EotN.
And did I not see "solo" builds on some of the hench we fought against in the tournament.

A change allowing seven heroes in a PvE party hurts no one and will help the ones that would like the change.


was writing before I saw response - nothing changes my post or opinion, actually Gailes response has changed my attitude. Design vision?? read above re: solo quests, etc glad I'm only getting 1 copy of EotN on release and waiting to purchase for my second account.

(Merged by Dralspire)

One word....

Owned

That made me laugh but at the same time well put. /signed for the same reason.

(Merged by Dralspire)

Ahaha, I love Gaile.

<3 Thank you ANet for being so interlinked with your community.