A discussion on 7 heroes

Many people solo with hero/henches anyway, I don't see why having 7 heroes would be all that bad. Like many people have said "wouldn't be that serious of an impact."

Many newer players, or not new that lack nightfall, that have proph/fac will still be playing with people.

There would be no impact at all game play wise, 7 heroes is no different than going with 7 humans. It may lower human interactivity a bit but there is still plenty of it.

Anet has no viable excuse not to, and most everyone knows it, so they only reason they won't is they probably plan to have this feature in GW-2 and need it as one of their a selling points for the new game.

So likely we will spend the next year and a half or so pestering them for 7 heroes and they will continue to give us the typical Anet middle finger. Then do an about face for GW-2 trying to come off like heroes themselves for finally giving in to public demand.

No impact to gameplay.
-Changing an MMO to a purely Solo RPG changes the content of the game significantly and changes the game's player dynamics and expectations. I could argue that if Anet did that, they would betray the players who were advertised an ONLINE rpg with social interaction.

7 heroes is no different from 7 humans.
-Um...no. I dont even need to disprove this. Its just wrong.

It may lower human interactivity
-We dont have data to prove or disprove this.

Anet has no viable excuse.
-They dont need any excuse. They designed the game. They determine what content is solo-able and what content is not.

As it stands adding 7 heroes wont help (some)solo players with the highest end content because not all content can be played by 1 player, even with 7 heroes, 11 heroes, whatever. There will still be content they cannot play that was never designed to be solo-ed.

Anet wants to use this as a selling point for GW-2
-The interview with Anet has pointed to a much different henchman/hero system, that being they are your "sidekick", with a limit of 1 per player.

I'm not supporting more hero slots because its all about a personal agenda.

Some of the people who support it are doing it for some gain for solo players, with the argument that they wont hurt anyone doing it, so why not let them have it?

Some of the better arguers are using the argument that they are entitled to play the way they want, as advertised by Anet. I think you need to read the warning "gameplay may change during online play" and take it to heart. Hardmode and DOA were never part of what came in the box. One could argue that the Deep and Urgoz should be reworked, because it doesn't support solo play, but since was never designed to be for solo play, the design is working as intended and doesn't need fixing.

hey, but if I'll have 7 heroes, how could I play the deep and urgoz? I want 11.

Of course it wouldnt be purely a solo RPG. Only those that want to use 7 heroes would use them. You and everyone else who enjoys pugging or playing with friends will carry on doing just that. You will still be able to play how you want. The difference is....so will we.

I could argue that GW is really a one player game with multi-player options, with HM and DOA and Elite areas being completely optional, i think i have a good case.

No. You will still not be able to play how you want. You will never be able to solo the whole game even with 7 heroes, or 11 heroes.

there are some expert players who state that you will not be able to 7 hero the top elite areas which is your stated reason for wanting 7 heroes

we can do everything which we cannot do now

if the experts cant do it you can bet the casual player you claim to champion wont be able to

what most people demanding 7 heroes want is the ability to use 4/5 heroes on high end non elite farming runs taking advantage of the bigger chance of loot dropping for them due to having a party of 5 (them plus 4 heroes) with 3 empty slots and the same amount of loot.

this is based on expert players months ago saying :

*i would happily trade all 4 henchmen for one additional hero because that one additional hero with the propper runes/insig/skillbar will be much more effective than the hap hazzard 4 henchmen*

me and the 4 heroes and 3 empty slots in the place and conditions i choose are much better than me plus 3 heroes plus 4 henchmen in the same spot

[QUOTE]
this would have a major impact on farmers which would trickle down to all of us

forget DOA think favorite high end farming area of choice which you can do with 4 heroes and 3 empty slots for excluded bonus loot drops that the full party of H/H wont be there to grab

This is a PvE that we are talking here so I don’t see why we should limited down to 3 heroes, most of the henchman had only fair to good skill set, not to mention henchman lack of the basic command of attack, defense, or avoid combat mode as well as lack of flag to a location for each henchman, whereas heroes we can set great build however we like base on the area we are dealing with. Whether it might or might not lower human interactivity is entirely up to each player we shouldn’t be force to interact with other players in any way at all. Aside from that matter each mission, outpost, and town is spread thin of player after each new campaign released including expansion Eye of the North which caused finding PuG can be quite difficult depending on the time of the day that you’re playing. As for the concern of people abusive using heroes for farming, well this is an entirely different matter that ANet should take action on those players who abusive the game which shouldn't hold it against from having 7 heroes.

In those areas that won't become ghost towns because of the introduction of seven heroes, that is.

Assuming that this would create ghost towns.

It's more than that. He's openly admitting that, given the choice, most people would rather play solo than PUG. His whole opposition to 7 heroes, in turn, is built around forcing people to play in a way they find less enjoyable so that he can play the way he prefers. Don't you just love the PUG crowd? Gee, I can't imagine why more people don't want to play with them.

I'm still confused about the henchies in GWEN. Seen their skillbars? They're *very* decent, especially compared to the builds of the previous campaigns (see: Herta).

So dunno why they'd do that...

Well, not to get my hopes up or anything, but there may be a win/win/win/win situation here. I better go get my flame retardant gear for this, because there are a stinking lot of people on this board who evidently hate seeing everyone win.

1) Grind. Grind for toon power is bad. Max title benefits and PvE skills from the get-go and leave grind where it belongs - recognized by status symbols, not game-breaking rewards for grinders with no life besides GW (or just focusing on 1 toon and not the 10 that we all have!) that - cant stress this enough - ignore the 200 point attribute balance mechanism. Players will be much more effective than heroes. Win.

2) 7 Heroes. Let everyone have 7 heroes if they want - that way solo players are at max efficiency, or they have the very valid option of using the henchmen as well if they do not have lots of skills captured yet, or just have nostalgia. Win.

3) Loot. Adjust loot drops up for teams. ANet has always always used the stick, and not the carrot, to change their playerbase behavior. For once, for crying out loud, up rewards for teaming such that a team of 8 will guarantee boss drops for one random lucky player each and every time, for instance. That will encourage players to team because there is a reward - and it will happen. Right now, because players do not have the opportunity to team a lot, most are just plain not used to it. They'll get better over time. Use the carrot. Win.

4) PUG or not. With all the above, solo players still have the option of using heroes if they are short on time, but there would be a big incentive to team up for better drops and the fact that players are more powerful than heroes. Win.

This seems like a no-brainer to me.

Thanks!
TabascoSauce

I agree that it's just outright bizarre. Much as I'd prefer 7 heroes, I think I'd be inclined to shut up if:

1) We could take henchies in elite missions (though it's kind of sad to have 25 heroes yet only really use a tiny fraction of that) and

2) In hard mode and elite missions henchies had skill bars like those in GWEN

But I'm with you, if they're trying to force us to MP they're failing miserably (thank goodness) and if they're not then why no 7 heroes?

Please don't put words in my mouth. I've stated many, many times in my thread what the concerns are related to providing seven heroes and the likely impact on PuGs. I have no idea where you are getting the idea that I want to "force" anyone to play in PuGs, just like I wouldn't say that you are trying to "force" people to play solo.

But, resorting to platitudes and overgeneralizations that "hey, we've won, you ain't got no argumentz, so give us our darned heroes already" seems to be where this thread is going (which is why I've bowed out of it for so long). I'd love to hear some more meaningful conversation on the matter (much like what lyra song has been posting), but if it just becomes a banter between the diehard posters shaking their heads to each other, so be it.

It seems Anet placed itself in a difficult position because they're in between the two main player groups here. The ones who like to pug and the others who would like to play with 7 heroes. Allowing 3 heroes is dissatisfying both groups while only one group could have been pissed off.

Unbalance seems like a good reason to me. I feel the difference when I play together with my gaming buddy and 6 heroes versus when I play H/H. You can make exceptionaly strong teambuilds with more than 3 heroes. But you can also duo UW smite runs with only one hero or do parts of DOA with three heroes.

I also believe that a hero build can be better than the average guildteam. It depends on the situation, the builds needed and the strategy as well as reaction speed, ability to micro heroes and some other factors. Some builds are suited more for a hero than a human player. An example would be repeatable task build'. I never encountered a human mesmer who can interupt as fast, accurate and endlessly as my Gwen with her signet interupt build. She can shut down a place to the point she steals the show.

Personally, I'm in favor of 7 heroes because I like the skillbar building part of the game a lot and wanne try unique teambuilds of my own. Also, I got used to playing with a 6 hero team and it's more fun to me.

About the impact on pugs...I would love to see plenty of pugs people again like in the old days. They don't do me any harm. But it seems more people choose for h/h parties since nightfall because the option was suddenly there. That says something about pugs because in theory pugging is still possible, yet not so popular.

I'm glad they added heroes so I would'nt have to wait for a damn snooby monk or healer (it was always the monk for me) that thought it knew everything and left if the party did'nt worship it. Anyone remember those days? They pretty much disaperated once people found out heros were superior in that they did'nt complain and nag and had a stupid higher reaction time due to no typing commands for the party to follow.

I can usually get stuff done with just 3 heroes and 4 henchmen, but they should allow 7 heroes because of the lvl 28 monsters and the bosses that can one shot you because they're higher in lvl and thus skill pointage than you'd ever have and have monster only skills. That in combination with death penalty and I'm not even in hard mode. Or they could at least nerf the monster lvls, I mean come on when would you normally go after something 8 levels higher than you in any game.

But the natural consequence of denying SP players access to elite missions and ensuring that they have it harder in HM mode than most people will tolerate is just that, to force people to PUG. Furthermore, you yourself openly state that people will solo if they have access to 7 heroes that PUG now. Said people would clearly prefer to solo, if you're so certain they'd do it. Why are you so intent on forcing them to play in a way that, according to your own reasoning, they don't enjoy?

I don't have to put words in your mouth, all we have to do is follow your arguments to their logical conclusions. I don't blame you for not liking those conclusions, though, as they're decidedly less than flattering.

And incidentally, that second line you've quoted was about Anet, not your and your fellow PUGgers.

Oh, but that's something even I would admit in the current game.
I would however even state that a lot of people would rather use heroes than guild/alliance members.
7 heroes will hurt teaming, because it would be the single best choice for every player. (continued below quote)

Oh yes, there is one major difference.
Time.
Why on earth would I want to wait for 1 hour to get a full human team when I can get about the same quality with heroes?
This is what all solo-players seem to forget when they argue about how 7 heroes will not break the game.
They are used to the 5-minutes teaming time (load heroes and templates, go).
They are not used to go to Deep with an part alliance team (forming time about half an hour) and having trouble filling the lasts spots (again, half an hour) only to have some nutcase f-up while rearranging the team.
Vanquish? That would mean waiting for 20-60 mins because someone who wants to join is in the middle of something.
With the possibility that someone says 'changed my mind, go alone'.

Add 7 heroes to this and people would only team up because they want feel like it. And most of the time, titles and personal goals are in the way of that 'I feel like it'.
Currently there is one huge reward for teaming up with an other human.
You get the human + 3 heroes. Here two players benefit, not one.
As I already argued, when a 1/7 team adds an extra human to form a 2/6 team, the value of that extra human is minimal.
You gain some human advantage, but lose on teaming-time and synergy (with a good hero team build).
The best example of this was the 3/5 GvG Discord team.
The humans were there to enable the heroes to do their jobs (2x necro condition/hex spreader) and to take the role heroes can't play (N/Mo infuser).
Humans are needed because heroes can't execute alternative strategies when needed. I doubt humans could play this build as good as heroes, because you had to know if conditions were still met.

The same is true for a lot of other hero team builds.
Make sure the right conditions are met and heroes will act on it.
They are a lot faster than humans on 'sensing' when a certain condition is met, specially when attacking a group of enemies.

Introducing 7 heroes without rewarding human teams for the time it takes to for a team (or shorten that time) is going to kill a lot of the social aspect that A-net still wants.
I do like TabascoSauce's idea, but I don't think point 3 will solve the problems.

Just gonna throw my thoughts into the discussion.

Seven heroes would be insane. You could get a mad team of seven AI heroes that you can customise exactly the way you like. The Heroes diluted the multiplayer aspect of the game enough, but allowing seven to be added to a team would mean PUG's would no longer exist (to a degree). While I do hate PUG's, a lot of the fun of being a newbie comes with grouping with like-minded players who are just as eager to start a mission as you.

It's very hard to do so in the current game though, as most players will now rather take three heroes and four henchmen and only do multiplayer with friends or guildies.

As the_jos mentions, the social aspects of the game would be trampled on by a seven heroes system, like a Kournan Bowman trampled under Zhed's hoof.

It's the same drumbeat from the opposition over and over, and it really just comes down to this:

force people to team, force people to team, force people to team

I don't care about the social aspects of the game, I didn't buy the game to PUG, I bought it to play with friends and solo. If you want to force a game to be MP only, you'd better damn well advertise it that way from the beginning. Anet didn't. This game was designed to support solo, small group, AND PUG play. PUG's aren't any more important than those other two styles of play, and those of you that enjoy them have no business trying to force everyone else to play your way.

I don't think there can be any "awesome" solution for this since no one has any idea how it will play out. It may cause more ghosttowns, it may do just the opposite. It may greatly kill pugs, it may actually encourage people to play together. How much do we know? Not a whole lot, and this is probably the only reason ANet probably doesn't want to do this: No idea of what direction this'll take. Too hard to tell if it'll help or hurt.

But I really do like Tobasco's third idea. I'd say double the drop rate of everything (even triple) and provide 100% droprate on Greens - with a human party. I don't care about drops/gold when I'm h/h'ing, I just want to play.

Screw soloers AND people that play with small groups of friends/guildies for loot. Wow, that's... great.

You guys realize you're trying to piss all over the bulk of the player base at this point, right? I mean, screw the soloers AND the small group players and see how many copies of GW2 sell.

Oh and incidentally:

Then those people are idiots, frankly. Competent humans are better than heroes, period.

PUG < 1 competent player with H/H < 1 competent player with 7 heroes < 2 competent players with 6 heroes << 8 competent players

If there were enough friendly, competent people playing the game, social players would never play any other way. People like me, who can't fathom the appeal of playing with strangers, would still stick to small group and soloing. Heroes have nothing to do with the lack of PUG and large group play, people do.

You can force people to group, you can't force them to like it and, ultimately, you're just driving people away from the game.

Whoa - this is not a nerf, Vin. This is a carrot. If you play solo or H/H, then your situation does not change. This is encouragement to play in human groups for the purposes of getting loot and such.

Hehe, insert joke here about how GW players are so used to the stick that when a carrot idea comes along, they automatically get suspicious. J/K

Thanks!
TabascoSauce

Wow, you are so intent in your way of thinking that you have the inability to understand anyone else's point of view, to the point of taking other people's arguments and bending them to the extreme just to make them support your point. I'm simply flabbergasted.

Please, please, please reread my posts on this issue. Again, you are very much attempting to put words in my mouth and justifying that "it's just a logical extrapolation of your position." Maybe logical to you in the sense that you are trying to twist it to prove your point, but not logical in the common sense of the word.

You don't understand...with someone who is as intent as Vin to prove his point, it's not simply a nerf - it would be an active threat to everyone, warning them not to play solo or "else". Maybe this would also "force" people to play in PuGs, eh, even though they all hate it?

I think the game is fine the way it is right now. Just leave it be. If you have enjoyed GW now, there is no point in trying to piss off another group of people with an update that some people dont want. Imagine more hate threads. lol. If you have played solo or have pugged before in GW and enjoyed playing, not alot of reasons to complain.

I think this is another reason why they are getting rid of H/H in GW2. In GW2 you can solo play everything with just your one character (from what i remember reading)

Anywho there are valid arguements in this thread, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This thread seems more preechy than anything right now. No one here is gonna break on the reasons why they think there should or should not be 7 heros. Its like 2 brick walls.

Bear in mind that I'm not saying that I'm demanding 7 heroes - it would just be a little more fun having to customize builds for a whole party of 8. I'm in here to see good reasons against and for, but as I've already stated I don't think *any* of us will know what will happen. Neither side has a whole lot of evidence.

Also note that GW2 won't need heroes, but you will have your own personal "sidekick", so to speak. All in all it sounds like the sequel will be scaled around party size. Sounds fun!

within the year AFTER the release of GW2 money says 7 heros for the win.....

Yet your drumbeat is essentially.

"its doesnt hurt anyone. its gonna be good for me. you dont have to do if you dont want to. Let me do what i want to do."

Sounds like a drug dealer/user friend of mine from back in high school (I'm being serious).

You are forcing people to solo.

With the option there, you can easily say that we don't have to do it. But thats a totally unrealistic expectation.

It's RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing pandora's box.

Of course everyone is just gonna solo and do 7 heroes ALL the time. It's not even a matter of if you can, anyone who tries to group will be ridiculed by other players "Just use heroes noob".

It does change the gameplay. It changes the players. It changes the gaming environment. I think this is why Anet is very firm in their decision to not even DISCUSS this topic. Or read this thread. Maybe they don't want all their players turning into hermits. Maybe they actually want social interaction, meeting people and growth and development through other players and sharing knowledge.

It removes the need for other human players. Even if other human players would be better for more complex tactics, who cares, you can still solo. You could still beat it, and definitely better than the worse pugs.

You are only looking at it from a soloer's perspective. RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO the puggers. They can pug if they want, let me solo. That's all i hear. It doesn't sound very justified, it just sounds very greedy and selfish and those arguments just aren't enough for any change.

What is broken. What needs to be fixed. Why.

Heroes are functioning ok (albeit with weak and buggy AI). Soloing is not hard with exception to areas whos level design exceed the capabilities of AI, meaning they weren't meant for AI. So what needs to be fixed?

Wanting to play with more builds, use more heroes (oh my god, they are going to waste if i dont use them!), and wanting to beat areas not designed to be soloed are bad reasons.

Ok im just going to reply to the points rather than the posters here because there is a lot to quote otherwise.

First of, it being used for farming. I honestly dont get this, someone said having heroes gives you a higher drop rate. Heroes take drops just like henchmen and just like players. You wouldnt get any more drops using heroes.

Another comment was again on heroes being overpowered. It was directed at ints so ill stick to that. Yes a hero can interrupt faster. However they will also go right ahead and waste an interrupt on that flare. They will then happily sit and watch MS be cast.

Heroes arent intelligent. Its as simple as that, they cant work out which skill is more important to int in each situation. A player knows exactly what they want to int.


Next up "It would force people to solo"

Not at all.

These people saying no to 7 heroes. Do you think they would go and use them? There will always be people to play with. Will it reduce the number of people to pug with? Most likely yes.

However those people would obviousely prefer to use 7 heroes, also there will still be people who want to pug. Besides with guilds and friends you should never have a problem anyways.


Heroes wont allow access to some of the higher end areas still.

Yes we know this, however we would be able to access more. HM for example (Yes it can be done with h/h but why should a solo player be forced to play with a warrior with charge and less than 8 skills on their bar? Henchmen dont even have the full 8 skills outside of GW:EN and we are meant to vanquish with them?).
Why can the solo player not be able to use the same teams as a team of players can?


Sorry to pick you out here but I felt this did need commenting on.

Its greedy and selfish to allow 2 different groups to play how they want?



And again, most people who want 7 heroes will already be using h/h. Its not like a whole wave of players will suddenly dissapear from pugs. Those people that enjoy pugs...will enjoy pugs just the same.

Yep, PUG's died ages ago - in fact in my opinion they died the first time the following words were written on a forum: "Camp the King". When Thunderhead Keep was easily henched it signaled the death of PUGs - at that point what was considered the most difficult mission in the game was henchable and people began looking for tactics other than the straightforward, in a sense they began to believe that hench were capable. The Golden age of PUG's (such as it was - even back then most people henched all but a few missions) was at an end. I can't say there will not be a single player that having 7 heroes would make a difference as to which way they went, but the change would be very small.

The other amusing thing is noticing how people arguing against it switch back and forth between Heroes being horrible and not worth playing with and being so much better than humans that no one would group again if you were to add more. The argument against them requires both things to be true.

Eh, it's not going to happen anytime soon if it ever does - Anet sees the game as a multi-player game that you can solo when you want. However most of the player base sees it as a solo game you can multi-player when you want. Anet wants to force the first case though if you can solo every part of it (and you must be able too if you see the game in the first case) people will choose to solo the whole thing - especially true since there is no other decent game to go play that is "solo but multi-player when you wish it". Three heroes per human is a compromise between the two groups and like any compromise it is a solution that makes both sides angry.

It would be more like:
PUG, 1+ 3H&4H, 2+6H, 3+5H, 1+7H, 8
Reason below:

Interrupt is not the only thing. It's only a small part.
The main issue is the ability of heroes to oversee the entire battlefield at once.
Where humans have to communicate a lot, heroes 'know' when something happens. And they also know the reaction of the other partymembers except the human players. Even when they have a called target, they switch to interrupt. Hardly ever with several heroes at once, it's one interrupt from the group.
However, it does not only work with interrupt, but also with conditions and hexes.
Chaining is easy for heroes and requires more coordination from humans.

This is why a good 7-hero team build would not only outperform a 2+6, but even a 3+5 team. This because not everyone knows what the heroes are doing. It's easier to execute more complex strategy with humans, but till now that was hardly ever a need for that.

Having read loads of messages on this subject I have changed my thoughts on the matter.

It may be a little radical but I would like the present 3 heroes reducing to 1 so you get 1 decent ai companion.

That would mean beginners would need 1 human companion to form the 4 person party and full parties ie 8 would have a minimum of 4 humans.

I think this would be good for the game.

Of course it would still be possible to form a party based on 1 human 1 hero and 6 henchies but I think you would struggle in some of the hardest areas.

I realise that trying to do this in the present game would be almost impossible and annoy those who have only known the game with heroes.

I don't understand your argument; are you saying that people only pug at the moment because the alternative sucks so much? Or, are you saying that, already, there is no social aspect to the game and that given any decent alternative people will use AI?

If your statement is true then pugging Giuldwars is already dead and no amount of prodding or poking the player base to pug is ever going to work.

In my opinion if the general level of players make comments like, 'Just use heroes noob.' then this is the best argument to implement full hero parties, because I don't want to socialize with idiots in RL, so why would I in game?

I often use heroes because most of the time nowadays I am not very talkative, pretty darn lazy and often just log out mid zone.

No. Its greedy and selfish to care only about the effects to your gameplay and no one elses. The argument isnt for 2 groups. Just 1 group. The soloer. You dont care about puggers or team players.

Hypothetically we can say allowing 7 heroes will have zero impact on other players.

But.

The mindset behind the argument never even accounted for any impact whatsoever. Now tell me thats not selfish.

Its based on "You can still group, you can do what you want, let me do my own thing."

The only reason it stands up to anything is because theres no empirecal(sp?) proof of a negative effect, nor is that negative effect solely based on the argument but on other factors as well.

Thats the only reason you can get away with saying that and pretend to care about the group player as well.

And it still boils down to "WANT". Want want want.

I want to play the way I want.

Thats great. I want to play with dual wielding hammers. Go back to my absurd list, and all of those are justifiable with wants.

And they are optional so they obviously have zero impact right?

--------------

[quot=Verek]I don't understand your argument; are you saying that people only pug at the moment because the alternative sucks so much? Or, are you saying that, already, there is no social aspect to the game and that given any decent alternative people will use AI?

If your statement is true then pugging Giuldwars is already dead and no amount of prodding or poking the player base to pug is ever going to work.

In my opinion if the general level of players make comments like, 'Just use heroes noob.' then this is the best argument to implement full hero parties, because I don't want to socialize with idiots in RL, so why would I in game?[/quote]

Lets ignore the guild/friendlist player for a moment, since this their pool of party members is not based on strangers.

What im saying is this.
If you create a situation where a player has 2 choices to play the game.

1)7 Hero A.I.
2)Human P.U.G.s

The human player will most likely choose A.I., regardless of the quality of P.U.G.s.

This is especially true for casual players and new players who are still doing normal mode. H/H by itself is sufficient to beat all chapters of the game in normal mode. This creates a dependancy and a false image that human parties are not required at all. With lack of other players grouping to begin with, we continue to foster this illusion. When said players finally attempt higher end areas that were never designed for heroes/hench, they hit a brick wall and are unable to continue because of their lack of a social network which is built upon making friends through guild or pugging.

Lets look at the basic design.
Pugging is FORCED in Presear.
-Res sig quest
-North of the wall quests
-Searing quest

only after that can you use henchmen.

Quote myself FTW

Actually Lyra is having 7 heroes would mean no one could pug I obviousely wouldnt be asking for it. Those people paid just as much as me to be able to play how they want. Im looking for a soloution where both groups can do what they want.

As it currently stands only those who team with players are in that position. People who solo are at a disadvantage. With 7 heroes there would be less of a disadvantage while still allowing people to pug.


It will not stop people from pugging. Will some people stop pugging? Yes, yes they will. Why? Because these people would use AI if they didnt get punished for it.

So you loose people who would rather not pug, thats no great loss. All those people who enjoying pugging? Yup they will carry on pugging.


This way both groups would still be able to play the game how they want. Both groups. Not one or the other.


I have to say I feel its selfish if people are against this simply because it will take them an extra few minutes to find a pug. Yes it will impact you, but it wont be a huge gamekilling impact. It will be a small change for a huge positive benefit to another group.

Why are people so afraid PUGing will end if we get 7 heroes? Do you really think the majority of the playerbase has the unlocks to give them decent builds? Or the dough to outfit them with runes?