A discussion on 7 heroes

http://guildwars.incgamers.com/forum...d.php?t=463339

Heres a poll on it over at GWO. 78% of players there want 7 heroes. Im not bothering discussing it anymore here unless a poll is put up.

Someone start a poll for 7 heroes please. Ktnxby

I dunno about having 7 heroes...but perhaps an addition 1 would be nice. Theres always places in HM Vanqin you wish you had just 1 extra hero spot that would make a huge difference.

7 is a bit excessive in my opinion, and some of you stated why. Population is a problem though I agree....but 7 heroes would make it a bit worse. Id say add one extra spot.

I love playing with people, I also love playing with Heros when I know my time is limited and I may have to quit in the middle of a dungeon or mission.

I want both, why can't I have it?

With the additional areas added on its become extreemly difficult to form a decent group in may areas.... I am 104230401240% on board the 7 hero bandwagon, and here is why

1. A great deal of additional area with only slightly more people means many areas are more or less empty.

2. 7 heros doesn't unlock godmode. 8 Humans will always be better than 1 with 7 heros.

3. Wont affect PvP balance as HA has restricted numbers and Hero battles caps at 4....

4. Its just a good idea, keeps people from complaining about how bad henchmen are, we will see if their build is any better.

Actually, the question is more: why not? From what I've seen and known, the 3 hero limit isn't good incentive. People will just pick up the three best heroes and get outta there. The fact that they're "overpowered" is greatly debateable (yes they have great reaction time, but can't use any PvE skills whatsoever).

So, why not?

So finally everyone actually agrees that 7 heroes would be nice?

Isnt it a nice game we play, where the players know what would make the game better and Anet dont care?

Gaile has already recently stated that Anet have no plans to allow 7 heroes, and that she is ignoring the discussions on it (Read through teh 120+ pages at GWO).

What was their reason for not allowing players to have 7 heroes again? Was it to promote grouping or buddy gaming or something? I have someone to play with most of the time so 3 or 7 don't bother me that much.

But do Anet really think that by limiting the number to 3 with make those people who want to go alone anyway think twice? Hardly, that why there're so many H/H team. If they set it to 1 hero, those people would still use 6 henchmen to fill the slots.

Don't they get it? Most people don't like other people that they don't know, don't like pugs, don't like the way other play, builds etc. That's why they rather play with themself.

If they allowed us to take 7 Heroes, I'd still be just as likely to play with others. Usually if I'm PvEing with another player, its because a friend of mine needed help. In that situation, its irrelevant how many heroes I can bring--I'm still going to help them out.

And really, the henchmen in Eye of the North are basically heroes anyway; they use 8 skills on their bar, and have intelligent setups that we would be likely to give to a hero anyway. So whats the difference? Being restricted to 3 heroes isn't making me group with others any more or less, personally.

Perhaps a compromise would be in order: If your party is set to hard mode, open it up to 7 heroes. In normal mode, 3.

I would like full hero party.
Anet has stated there no plans to do it.
I'm content with Hero/Hench or Me + Guild member + 6 hero's atm.

When GW1 shows sign of real death / lack of players, they may implement this feature but don't see it for a few years.

I wish they make them 4 atleast.
I always take a warrior hero with me and have charge on them so I can cut down on walking time, espeically if I need to go back and forth.
If we get 4 then at least I can fill 3 SF eles or 2 SF and an MM etc.

[QUOTE]NO i do not agree and i hero/hench only


right.......a small loud group knows more than the company which made it a success

actually Gaile stated that it was tested on their servers and rejected by Jeff Strain/ Mike O`Brion / and the rest of the design team and for the reasons THEY gave it will not be done.

NOTE

usually Anet will leave wiggle room to change their mind later

HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT?

it is being considered

that sounds like a good idea

i will pass it on to the head people

it is being looked at as a possibility

we are looking for a way to do that

if we can we will depending on how it tests out

we are testing several ideas (reconnects) and if one is successful we will do it

HOW MANY TIMES HAVE THEY CHANGED A FLAT NO?

Gaile stated

1. we have already discussed it and the answer is NO

2. we have already tested it on our closed servers and the answer is NO

3. we will not be coming back to this issue as the answer is decided NO

once Anet/NCsoft makes a flat decision i havent seen them change due to a loud vocal minority

120+pages of GWO DREK it boggles the mind

[QUOTE=Loviatar]78% isnt a minority numb-nuts. Look up the facts before posting BS.

Agian, someone start a poll on guru for this please.

That's funny, there's a link here to a poll that shows that 70%+ would want 7 heroes but you somehow managed to turn it to vocal minority

Well, you have 3 heroes and 4 hench to support you if you like to play 'solo'.
That should be enough, I don't see a reason why it would not work.

I also have some responsibilities and just make sure I can finish whatever I start or inform my team beforehand that I might need to leave early.

I think you forget one thing here, bhavv.
It's 78% of the posters on GWO, which is not 78% of the GW player base.
And, people that don't care don't vote.
Now, there are 653 people that voted for 7 heroes.
Out of a total of 165,569 registered accounts.
To me that means that a large majority (about 99.7%) of the GWO community could not care less about the number of heroes.

Edit: same reply for BlackSephir

[QUOTE=Loviatar]
actually Gaile stated that it was tested on their servers and rejected by Jeff Strain/ Mike O`Brion / and the rest of the design team and for the reasons THEY gave it will not be done.[QUOTE]

Question: what were their reasons specifically?


As you have stated, anet usually leaves wiggle room so I really think that since a majority of people want this for PvE, so what happened to make Anet so against this idea?

"Vocal" means they are... well, vocal, people who don't vote and have "I don't give a rat's ass" aren't really vocal, are they?

If 70%+ of people who actually care voted for 7 heroes and ~20% against then this must mean that vocal minority doesn't want 7 heroes, while vocal majority does want.
Rest who hasn't voted? Not "vocal".


And "couldn't care less" != "don't want"

[QUOTE]if GWO had a few million active posters you would be right the both of you.

if either of you think GWO speaks for the player base that is your problem

78% of what?

78% of a tiny minority of the player base that even visits a fansite

so yes a tiny loud minority OF THE PLAYER BASE

GWO the voice of the player base?............no way

BlackSephir,
We have about 0.3% of the registered users of a large community site voting for some feature and another 0.1% against it.
A total of 0.4% that speaks out is a vocal minority.

Furtermore, the GWO and GWG community represents only a very small (but active and outspoken) part of the entire GW community.
This is something people tend to forget when they refer to fan sites.
I'm not saying people posting on fan sites should not be listened to, but one should also not forget that those people (including me) are only a small part of the bigger picture.

Out of curiosity, why don't you agree? If there was a vote that said "Would you want 7 heroes?", would you vote "undecided" or "No"?

Since there's no way to check what silent minority/majority thinks (that's why they're silent, not 'vocal') AN should stick to what vocal majority/minority says.

We have GWO forums with 70%+ for 7 heroes, if you have any other forum that's against 7 heroes- please do share.

If suddenly AN would allow 7 heroes and vocal majority would wake up and said "what the hell, I don't want that" then f them for being silent, yes? That's why forums exist, to know what people think and from what I've seen majority here and on GWO wants 7 heroes.
Maybe the rest doesn't want but who knows? Or cares? They're silent- their problem.

For the voting discussion...

If the case of the online votes only being a minority, and not being taken into consideration is true, then why did Anet revert Ha back to 8v8 after the same proportion of forum voters (70-80%) voted for HA?

Care to explain that one? They listen to PVP players but dont care what PVE players have to say?

The actuall voting results would be the same if everyone that plays the game voted for it. The majority of guildwars players (easilly over 70% of the whole player base in the actuall game) would want to be able to use 7 heroes. That isnt speculation or hype, make an in game vote possible and you would wee the results would be the same as on the forums.

Anet already said you cant forget about the solo players.

But i have to say a "no" on seven heros. In my opinion, i believe that mmo's main intent is to have a large online community in which to play with, chat and other things. Being able to control so many heros would mean your playing a single player game in my eyes and not playing a massive multiplayer online game.

Saying that you just want the choice to use 7 heros ends up to be bad. The community is already filled with alot of ignorance, allowing that choice would make most of the community even more unfriendlier.

IMO, people who want to play solo or who are anti-social should stick to single player games. MMOs are there so that you'll play with other people. This arguement about playing alone in a game thats for a massive amount of people from all around the world is ironic.

Quick few rant arguement stoppers below:

-7 heroes is no different then 3 heroes 4 hench = wrong (builds are important if you are smart)

-7 heroes discourages PuG playing = wrong (hero/hench players will still never PuG, sorry but if you want them in your group...too bad they don't do PuG. PuG people will PuG, Hero/Hench people will Hero/Hench get over it)

-When Proph came out and everybody PuG, it used to be better = wrong (was nice but if you saw the stupid bars you used to play with back then, and the dumb builds other people had (wammo mending with FDS against fire monsters...etc, you probably wouldn't PuG with yourself. Yes they were good memories, impossible to happen once you learn how to play. [EG. people who think THK is hard in Hardmode probably havn't even tried it with Hero/Hench yet)

-7 heroes makes the game unbalanced = wrong (there is a reason Heroes can't use PvE skills. 8 humans with Pain Inverter and Asuran Scan = unbalanced (or some other PvE skill build depending on team build)

That's just how it is though, I personally don't care if we to have 7 or 3 but there are obvious benefits to having 7 over 3.

Benefits below:

-Getting masters on hard mode missions more viable (try doing eternal grove masters hardmode as a warrior. Bring 2 hero monks to keep party safe but lack DPS on one side, or bring DPS heroes but lack healing, either way pain in the butt using henchmen)

-Elite areas like DoA will be accessed by a whole new market of players (the big group of Hero/Hench players)

-In game economics will be improved (people can farm easyer and do elite areas more often solo creating better items in circulation, and more people will rune/weapon up more heroes at a time now buying those items...bots be damned (Altrumm Ruins people, just go and say "I don't need your bot farmed items anymore")

-Can finally spread out properly in PvE areas against AoE monsters (no longer will you have a group split 1, 1, 1, 1, 4 (4 = the henchmen they seem to die pretty easy against AoE attacks)


Conclusion below:

I posted in the most nerdy way I could so all can understand. If we did finally get an option for 7 heroes there would be way less dumb arguements, and PuG people will still be unaffected even if they are afraid they will never be able to PuG again. However, seeing as Anet can't even fix a simple graphical glitch on the Sunglasses armour, I highly doubt they even care to try and improve GW1 anymore.

Why would human + seven heroes be overpowered? A player plus 7 guildies is much more powerful. The 'three heroes for balance' rubbish could just as easily mean 'three people from the same guild for balance'. It would make about as much sense.

Guild Wars is not an MMO. It was not advertised as an MMO, and I would not have purchased the game if it had been. It does not have the characteristics of an MMO game, nor should it. Single player capability was advertised on the original GW box, so the game is supposed to be accessible both for multi and single player.

If the idea of Guild Wars was to force social play down everyone's throats, that idea should have been stated up front. Instead we were told that single play was possible, and indeed single play has been continuously supported throughout the lifetime of the game. To suddenly try to claim that this game is an MMO and those of us that like to play solo should, essentially, "get out" is preposterous. IMO players that want to force this to be an exclusively multiplayer game should stick to exclusively multiplayer games and leave the rest of us to play as we like.

Just enable 7 heroes in HM. PuG only do normal PvE since they are incompetent none of them is even bother doing HM. Everybody is happy.

While i agree with you that Guild Wars started solo play from the start, also stated in my link, but you are wrong sir. Guild Wars is an MMO, was advertised as an MMO, and requires you to have an ONLINE connection. I agree that this game wouldnt be what it is without the solo play, it may have never even have gotten this far.

I havent complained about imbalances or anything else. I just think that asking for 7 heros is too much. It tends to seperate the already torn community. Anet also agrees that 7 heros is too much.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/400/400429p1.html

As others have pointed out, it isn't "separating the already torn community" in hard mode because there's no one to play with in hard mode. It isn't "separating the already torn community" in places like DoA that have become ghost towns either. Adding content that is inaccessible to single players is bad enough, adding content that's inaccessible to single players AND that there's never anyone to group with to do is just stupid.

I still want to know when "or adventure alone with a party of skilled henchmen" from the original box had "except in the areas where there's good loot" appended to it.

And yes, I know Anet thinks 7 heroes is "too much." Anet's wrong, for hundreds of reasons that have already been stated hundred of times.

I want to make one thing clear.
Except a few missions/quests (thinking Eternal Grove HM, which is very hard) it's very possible to H&H the entire game.
I have several people in the guild that got their vanq. or protector titles with just H&H, saying it cannot be done is an insult to them.
Requesting 7 heroes is a matter of 'would like'/'nice to have' and not 'must have'.

The HA change was from 8 -> 6 -> 8 where the first 'vocal minority' were the people that wanted 6 players and later the 'vocal minority' were the people that wanted 8 players back.
Please let's not forget that.

This will not happen with heroes, I think the large majority of the players would support full hero parties or just don't care.
However, just saying that something needs to be done because most people are likely to support it might sound good, but would also require A-net to dedicate resources to this and change design mechanics.
I do understand that A-net dedicates those resources to other parts of the game that require more attention in their opinion.

No, other people have advertised it as an MMO. ANet has never stated that Guild Wars is a massively multiplayer online game. Check out the synposis on the main site, it never mentions it there, either.

So they're against having 7 heroes, but fine with 8 people having overpowered PvE skills?

I don't mind if they're against it and I don't mind if we're stuck with three. I just want a good reason.

Actually it's a compliment. I applaud their remarkable patience and ability to continue enjoying the game through massive frustration. I also applaud their willingness to put up with a system that was grievously punishing them for not bringing along other people. More power to them, that's for sure.

Actually, no.

See, people who dont want to pug ... well, they dont pug. regardless of how many heroes they can use. Ever since prophecies.

People wanting to pug, they do it anyway, again, regardless of how many heroes they can use.

Forcing people to pug does not help comunity at all.

Really, improving gameplay for non-pugers is not that bad.

I've said my peace in these types of threads many, many times, but it is posts like the one above that keeps me coming back for more.

1. Dismissing the impacts to PuGs is a very foolhearted position. Simply put, some players solely PuG and some players solely use heroes and henchmen. However, there are a great many players that are rather ambivalent to playing with other people or playing with AI. These players make a choice weighing the pros and cons of human players versus AI every time they enter a town.

If 7 heroes were instituted, many of these players would choose using 7 heroes over playing with other people for the simple efficiency of forming a party without hardly any downside.

That would likely decrease the availability of PuGs in many areas. I am yet to see anyone dispute this position with a rationale argument, other than the normal platitude you see above..."people who want to PuG will always be able to PuG."

2. Stating that "if you've learned how to play, you don't play in PuGs anymore" is flawed in so many ways, I don't even know where to begin.

3. There are many advantages (and disadvantages) that seven heroes have over seven human PuG players. See aiiane's article here http://aiiane.net/gw/?p=5 for a good compare/contrast of those differences. The use of PvE only skills by human parties compensates for those differences partially - but you have to consider all of the inherent advantages of being able to control the actions of every member of your party in that evalaution.

4. Regarding the economy, I think that the point is up to debate. If seven heroes allow for solo farming (especially in hard mode) of many areas that would be difficult to solo farm, you can expect a ton of gold to be inserted into the economy. More gold in circulation without improved ways to remove that gold generally leads to inflation. This will be partially offset by the influx of more rare items, but for the most part you could expect prices to increase, which is either a good or bad thing based on your perspective.

In short, dismissing those that are a bit worried about the introduction of seven heroes as "having dumb arguments" is a bit shortsighted. There is a reason that there have been many 50+ page threads on this very subject, and why A-Net has to pause at introducing a facet that has the possibility of dramatically changing the landscape of the multiplayer aspect of the game.

http://www.guildwars.com/products/guildwars/

lolz...you make me laugh. dont forget Jeff Strains speech he titled "How to create a successful MMO" I am sure that he doesnt represent Anet. Stupid arguement get back to the main subject.

I agree with a poster above, 7 heros is something you would like to have. Not something that is on top of Anets priority list since we have lived and enjoyed the game without it so far. I can see the apeal of having 7 heros and understand all the upsides for it. But i just dont agree with the nature of the beast being this is a community based game.

With the only option of bring 3 heros, the ones that get used the most (when not required by a mission or quest) is monk, necro (mm), and ele (most likely SF) and by smart people a mesmer to interupt. Casters may bring a mele of some sort but I think that henchman mele would be used better as they are pretty much throw aways anyways and heros can be put to better use. I would like to see 7 heroes just for shear variety. In EotN I bring two different hero groups, in the Norn area I bring LoD monk, interrupt mesmer, and sf ele. In all other areas I bring LoD monk, MM, sf ele. After that I make due with henchman for the other monk, a necro for blood rit, ele for more firepower, and either another ele or a warrior/ranger whatever for some mele attack. That is what I find to be the most efficient and since I always run it, most boring. What 7 heroes would do is make more options to make the game funner.

[QUOTE]what does that have to do with the fact that the only people who called GW an MMORPG were the moron reviewers who could not do anything but stick a square peg in a familiar round hole.

here is why JEFF STRAIN was invited to this conference and why he was qualified to speak completely separate from GW

read it and understand

1up.com. Not ANet. And it's illogical to assume that Guild Wars is an MMO just because Jeff Strain wrote that article. And if you say that Guild Wars *is* an MMO, how come ANet haven't proclaimed it themselves?

I wish I could say the same, but Guild Wars is just too damn big as it is to find people for groups these days. PUGs are even less common due to the way GW:EN is set up, both gathering most of the players and having no clear-cut route through it.

Most people pretty much do that anyways, especially in GW:EN where the henchie builds are kick ass.

You have 7 heroes with you. It's not solo-farming. You would not get anymore drops than someone bringing along henchies.

1. My point is that MORE players will use AI that currently do. It simply exacerbates the current problem.

2. What about those Hard Mode areas where it is very, very difficult to use heroes/henchmen to farm (but it would be very possible to use 7 heroes to farm)?

Wow, getting alot of feedback for calling GW a MMO. Maybe i should start a new thread? lol . I am sure that Anet wants to be distinguished from other MMO's and think this game is a new type of game on its own. Just isnt gonna happen.

I will use me as an example of how i played GW. Prophicies, PUG 50%. Factions PUG 50%, Nightfall PUG maybe 3% if i am lucky. So the introduction of heros had an impact on me. I would rather play with control over heros than PUG now. So you cant say that the introduction of 7 heros wont have some sort of impact on some players. Henchs are rather awful, alot of people only play with 2 or 3 human players in a party. Now you get 7 heros in the picture, the impact may only be a small percentage of players, but still you increase the number of people playing this game solo. I personally dont like that direction. I greatly understand why 7 heros would be awesome, i just dont think its healthy for this type of game. MMO LOLZZ

Both soloing it and playing with people have to keep their plus sides. Soloing it or playing with 2 or 3 human players is the majority now. I do enjoy where GW is at right now, but what would be the purpose of having the online part of the game with 7 heros? So you can chat and be in a guild? So you have the choice but may never or rarely use it. Thats a bad direction. It should be more open ended than that. The online aspect and the solo aspect have to hit a median. If not they should just make GW2 basically offline for pve and online for pvp. Orrrrrrrr....you can just play a offline single player rpg :O Dont you hate that when people say that!

...Or just tweak henchmen in Proph, NF, and Factions so that they have better skill bars, like in EotN, and enable 7 heroes for HM. So that way, I think, everybody is happy.