A discussion on 7 heroes - Guild Wars Guru archive powered by Guild Wars Legacy

Inner Salbat

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Oct 2005

Leader - ANZAC

E/

06 Sep 2008 at 14:48 - 1365

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobalt

I think 7 heroes is really a necessity for some classes that have been poorly balanced, or over nerfed so that are only desired in a certain few areas with and only with particular builds.

It goes way beyond that my main is a monk I have 10 other PvE characters making a total of 11 the whole reason behind so many? learn how they work even if you don't like them, now that aside even I as a monk of all things cannot find groups to do most of the things I want to do with a PuG, so my only option is to mutilate my skill bar with PvE skills because they can't be shifted to heros so I have to run some important ones and I utterly hate it, but I would live with that if I could tell the other 4 heros what to bring then I'd likely not need those PvE skills on my bar.

I must have sat for a good hour and a half today looking for someone to go do Duncan with me I didn't find a single group, and that is more or less the same with any Dungeon I wanted to do which means my only options is H/H and in hard mode doing dungeons (unless I'm running something wrong) completely suck, because my Hero's are let down by the ineptitude of the henchmen.

So I have 3 choices, 1. use consumables & or power stones, 2. forget about completing the dungeons in hard mode, 3. sit and wait till my gray and old for a party that in all likely hood will fail because it's probably there first time doing it too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.Shayne

DoA is declining again but Tormented Weapons may revive this area.

Don't bet on it, farmers are down there if I want tormented weapons (which I don't) then I'll buy them, screw going though all that torment to get them, and anyone that played before the Usran nerf already has theres.

Random Guitarist

Pre-Searing Cadet

Join Date: Sep 2008

Milton Keynes, In England

Destiny Of Awakening

R/Mo

06 Sep 2008 at 14:59 - 1366

I think 7 heroes would be really cool, so you can actually solo the 8 player missions.

This would benefit many people as 7 heroes allows a single person to manipulate a 8 person build.

This could however mess up the idea of the game. Obviously GW is an MMORPG so if everyone started to use 7 heroes at the same time it would take away the soul of the game.

Personally, like i said before i think 7 heroes would kick ass. Often, i play with one other player with 6 heroes, this is just a small step up.

Random Guitarist

Inner Salbat

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Oct 2005

Leader - ANZAC

E/

06 Sep 2008 at 17:04 - 1367

Quote:

Originally Posted by Random Guitarist

This could however mess up the idea of the game. Obviously GW is an MMORPG so if everyone started to use 7 heroes at the same time it would take away the soul of the game.

The thing is it's already messed up what happens is this, and I've noticed it for the last 3 releases EOTN,NF & Factions for PuGs if you don't get in with the rush of people that are trying to complete it if you come back a few months later after taking a break, everything you once could do with a PuG when it was first released is no longer achievable by PuG, your only options then it appears is Guilds / Heros or just blind luck that you got a team, what you have left in those areas are farmers a.k.a VS farmers.

I don't like giving a class more importants that the rest but when you have a key class like a monk not able to find groups to do certain things by PuG, you've got something seriously wrong with your game, and all the M.o.X hero's and summons aren't going to make a lick of differents.

hobbes2oo

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Jul 2006

N/A

W/R

06 Sep 2008 at 17:09 - 1368

I would like to have the ability to add up to 7 heros to a single player. However there must be balance in the game too. The way I see it 7 heroes per player should only be allowed in the hardest of areas (elite), or in hard mode. The Domain of Anguish, The Underworld, The Deep, Fissure of Woe and Urgoz's Warren all come to mind. Also ArenaNet could scale the difficulty of these and other areas based on how many heros are in your party.

Inner Salbat

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Oct 2005

Leader - ANZAC

E/

06 Sep 2008 at 17:21 - 1369

Quote:

Originally Posted by hobbes2oo

I would like to have the ability to add up to 7 heros to a single player. However there must be balance in the game too. The way I see it 7 heroes per player should only be allowed in the hardest of areas (elite), or in hard mode. The Domain of Anguish, The Underworld, The Deep, Fissure of Woe and Urgoz's Warren all come to mind.

I'd be happy with that solution including paying for the luxury.

Toxage

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Nov 2005

06 Sep 2008 at 17:52 - 1370

7 Heroes wouldn't imbalance the game at all.

A human paragon with my build can get over 80% damage reduction from 1 player... How is that not overpowered Arena Net!

Cobalt

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Aug 2005

Mo/W

06 Sep 2008 at 19:49 - 1371

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inner Salbat

It goes way beyond that my main is a monk I have 10 other PvE characters making a total of 11 the whole reason behind so many? learn how they work even if you don't like them, now that aside even I as a monk of all things cannot find groups to do most of the things I want to do with a PuG, so my only option is to mutilate my skill bar with PvE skills because they can't be shifted to heros so I have to run some important ones and I utterly hate it, but I would live with that if I could tell the other 4 heros what to bring then I'd likely not need those PvE skills on my bar.

I must have sat for a good hour and a half today looking for someone to go do Duncan with me I didn't find a single group, and that is more or less the same with any Dungeon I wanted to do which means my only options is H/H and in hard mode doing dungeons (unless I'm running something wrong) completely suck, because my Hero's are let down by the ineptitude of the henchmen.

So I have 3 choices, 1. use consumables & or power stones, 2. forget about completing the dungeons in hard mode, 3. sit and wait till my gray and old for a party that in all likely hood will fail because it's probably there first time doing it too.

Don't bet on it, farmers are down there if I want tormented weapons (which I don't) then I'll buy them, screw going though all that torment to get them, and anyone that played before the Usran nerf already has theres.

Duncan is one of those where even a Monk has to have a specific build to get in a group.

You are right if we had seven we could make the rules, set all the skills and do the runs the way we wanted not become cookie cutter specific for someone else.

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

06 Sep 2008 at 22:41 - 1372

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRyder

many people are also bad.

One of many if not the most important reason why many people won't switch over to use 7 heroes, and why many still don't use them today.

Dev121

Forge Runner

Join Date: Sep 2005

06 Sep 2008 at 23:14 - 1373

7 heroes please. Or take away 15 of the heroes that will never get used, just a waste of time making them to be honest.
I'll probably play the game again if they give me 7 heroes, just me, I dont care about anyone else.

MercenaryKnight

Forge Runner

Join Date: May 2006

Wolf of Shadows [WoS]

P/

06 Sep 2008 at 23:19 - 1374

No reason to not be allowed to use 7 heroes. It would be different if you could give each hero say 1 pve skill. Thus they would be overpowered compared to running henchman they provide.

Pugs basically fail or win. The ones that win are generally the groups where people complain need war tank, ele nukers, and monks. Leaving some people out of the groups.

Being able to play solo with heroes should be a viable option (just like everyone else said in this thread). Make it so the last 4 heroes function as henchman and don't have individual flags.

Should have had that available since heroes were implemented. People will play with heroes and a friend for more heroes. Or heroes with henchman. Letting us use more heroes won't magically force us to never play with a pug again or be the death of pugs.

Inner Salbat

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Oct 2005

Leader - ANZAC

E/

07 Sep 2008 at 03:31 - 1375

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobalt

Duncan is one of those where even a Monk has to have a specific build to get in a group.

You are right if we had seven we could make the rules, set all the skills and do the runs the way we wanted not become cookie cutter specific for someone else.

Yep I gave up in the end I tried a few times with h/h just couldn't even get past level 1 in the end I gave up and put it on the shelf as a to do later and went and vanquished another area in eotn instead because that was at least achievable, so I haven't given up as in quit totally just put it on pause.

JDRyder

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Apr 2007

Great temple of Balthazar

Mo/Me

07 Sep 2008 at 08:26 - 1376

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

One of many if not the most important reason why many people won't switch over to use 7 heroes, and why many still don't use them today.

people will still use heros even if they are bad cause most people have the mind set of "this build is good f*** every 1 else, im the best" w/o knowing how much of a skill curve the game has.

Inner Salbat

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Oct 2005

Leader - ANZAC

E/

07 Sep 2008 at 08:34 - 1377

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRyder

people will still use heros even if they are bad cause most people have the mind set of "this build is good f*** every 1 else, im the best" w/o knowing how much of a skill curve the game has.

"some" may have that opinion, its really all about choice the more choices you have in a game the better the game is if you ask me.

Amy Awien

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jul 2006

R/

07 Sep 2008 at 08:54 - 1378

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRyder

people will still use heros even if they are bad cause most people have the mind set of "this build is good f*** every 1 else, im the best" w/o knowing how much of a skill curve the game has.

Odd, you now seem to imply that it's mostly bad players that use heroes? An earlier complaint was that the demise of PuGs was due to the good players using hero's and avoiding PuGs and thus lowering the overall quality of PuGs.

People avoid PuGs not because of some their faults, but because there's something about PuGs that they don't like, it's a fault in PuGs and to bring people back to PuGs you have to address the faults in PuGs.

Inner Salbat

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Oct 2005

Leader - ANZAC

E/

07 Sep 2008 at 09:25 - 1379

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

People avoid PuGs not because of some their faults, but because there's something about PuGs that they don't like, it's a fault in PuGs and to bring people back to PuGs you have to address the faults in PuGs.

That cannot be fixed, Guild Wars in order to support ~all~ of it's content with PuG would have to have a population 5-10 times as big as it is now unfortunately it's declining not growing, hence the scrambling around with Guild Wars the complete collection, and MoX to see who is still listening that isn't playing.

It might be reward failure, loot scaling failure or both if people only want to do certain things once and once only then eventually you run into people that can't do certain things because all those that we're worthy of doing it with have gone on to other things, like myself I only plan on doing ~all~ of it just the one time, after it's all done what is there left for me to do? log off and wait for the next pitiful attempt at getting me back in the game like a MoX hero.

7 hero's on the other hand might peak my interest to do it more than once, on more than just 1 class.

As I said before;
Bad people in PuGs will be bad at 3 hero's and 7 hero's
Good people in PuGs should with in reason be able to handle 3 hero's and more.

The bonus of the bad guys is that they will have a choice learn to play properly in a PuG or H/H, while being forced into a position to H/H it might just teach them a thing or too about why there PuG was bad, because now there the masters of there own destiny, maybe it's just me but I notice my errors a lot more with h/h than with PuGs because there is a back up monk to cover my mistakes, a hero normally won't.

Courage!

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Apr 2008

Australia

Mo/

07 Sep 2008 at 10:30 - 1380

/notsigned 7 Kamikaze bombs rdy to die

ParanoidDenny

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Jun 2006

EOM

07 Sep 2008 at 13:14 - 1381

Hey heres an idea, simple and easy, add the 7 heros, if u dont want to use them then go full human team, if u do then they're there for the pickin.

Burst Cancel

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Dec 2006

Domain of Broken Game Mechanics

07 Sep 2008 at 14:18 - 1382

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Theories like this work in games where you can change your style midway, but in Guild Wars, the build you have is the build you have, and there are limits to what you can do midway (compared to most RTS games, where you can switch builds/unit compositions in response). Tactical adjustments only go so far.

In fighting games, the character you have is the character you have; some matchups are just going to be bad. Maybe they have a move that beats everything you have cleanly. Maybe they can zone you for free because you don't have an effective answer to their pokes. Maybe they can kill you from one knockdown. Ultimately, the thinking and training that goes into winning those lopsided matches is what pushes the top players - you're forced to explore and learn new skills because you simply can't win without them. It's particularly extreme in GG, where the characters are so varied that learning your own character isn't enough - you have to learn each matchup to be able to play competitively.

As I said above, the pertinent question is what the threshold for 'imba' is - and who is qualified to determine it.

zwei2stein

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Jun 2006

Europe

The German Order [GER]

N/

07 Sep 2008 at 14:47 - 1383

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

...

Care to explain those safeguards in GG?

Demon Drone

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Jan 2008

07 Sep 2008 at 15:02 - 1384

Here's a thought. Maybe PUG's have died is because they, you know...SUCK!! The intelligence of people on GW has fallen considerably. And when the quality of players gets less and less it's no wonder people (like myself) have gone to H/H or are doing things exclusively with guildies. The death of PUG's is not because of H/H. The death of PUG's is because of PUG's. H/H is simply better. Dispute it all you want.
Heros don't bitch and moan about how their trash build is somewhat better and then bitch at others when something goes wrong when it's their fault. Not to mention they're smarter than many human players. My hero monks do a better job of healing better than a lot of players out there.

ac1inferno

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Aug 2007

Boston

We D Shot Your Stances [GODS]

A/W

07 Sep 2008 at 16:46 - 1385

It would be nice to have 7 heroes since I'm going to use henchmans anyway instead of people because pugging is just terrible, but I'm not going to go into that. I just wonder how I would have to set up my screen to have the 7 hero bars fit in nice and neatly lol.

Koning

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Jan 2006

07 Sep 2008 at 16:51 - 1386

7 Heroes would be logical anyway. This game is dying, and as more people leave every day, that would leave us with little to no players to play with after a while.

And ye, like said above, I use henchmen to complete my h&h party anyway so heroes don't take over the role of humans.

Inner Salbat

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Oct 2005

Leader - ANZAC

E/

07 Sep 2008 at 17:08 - 1387

Quote:

Originally Posted by ac1inferno

It would be nice to have 7 heroes since I'm going to use henchmans anyway instead of people because pugging is just terrible, but I'm not going to go into that. I just wonder how I would have to set up my screen to have the 7 hero bars fit in nice and neatly lol.

The easiest solution is you don't your last 4 heros operate like henchmen might, which means no micro management for them, it's a trade off but at least you don't get retarded builds by ArenaNet.

eagleblade

Academy Page

Join Date: Aug 2007

D/

07 Sep 2008 at 17:59 - 1388

i'm sick of henchies running off on me!!

DreamWind

Forge Runner

Join Date: Oct 2006

E/Mo

07 Sep 2008 at 20:13 - 1389

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demon Drone

Here's a thought. Maybe PUG's have died is because they, you know...SUCK!!

Thats not the reason they died. They died because of the creation of heros and the release of expansions that spread the population out. Many outposts don't have players anymore, and the ones that do have players are infested with H/H soloers.

Charrbane

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Jul 2005

Canada

W/E

07 Sep 2008 at 20:29 - 1390

I say hell yes to having seven heroes in your team. That would be great.

The only time I've joined PUG's is when some random person asked me to join them. I don't go looking for PUGs and I always use heroes and henchers.... or sometimes join up with my 2 guildies. heh.

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

07 Sep 2008 at 21:18 - 1391

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRyder

people will still use heros even if they are bad cause most people have the mind set of "this build is good f*** every 1 else, im the best" w/o knowing how much of a skill curve the game has.

That's quite a broad assumption. Nonetheless, even though Amy pretty much summed up my thoughts, I don't think ANet should be accountable for that kind of stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

In fighting games, the character you have is the character you have; some matchups are just going to be bad. Maybe they have a move that beats everything you have cleanly. Maybe they can zone you for free because you don't have an effective answer to their pokes. Maybe they can kill you from one knockdown. Ultimately, the thinking and training that goes into winning those lopsided matches is what pushes the top players - you're forced to explore and learn new skills because you simply can't win without them. It's particularly extreme in GG, where the characters are so varied that learning your own character isn't enough - you have to learn each matchup to be able to play competitively.

As I said above, the pertinent question is what the threshold for 'imba' is - and who is qualified to determine it.

What happens, though, when you have a certain character that *doesn't* have any of those disadvantages? When there's a character where you don't have to work or push yourself when it's not needed? A character who's a "rock" and always turns his opponents into "scissors"?

At such a point, it doesn't matter how hard you push yourself. It's not going to be your skill that determines your victory, but the faults of your opponent. When this comes into play, your game is unbalanced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Thats not the reason they died. They died because of the creation of heros and the release of expansions that spread the population out. Many outposts don't have players anymore, and the ones that do have players are infested with H/H soloers.

You can't pin half of the blame on heroes, or heck you may not even be able to put any of it on heroes. With a game that's gotten so big as Guild Wars and with the entire playerbase being chopped up in so many way - instancing, no global party search, etc. - heroes start to become more of a blessing.

For my point of view: If there weren't any heroes, I wouldn't be looking to PUG. I just wouldn't be playing. While I am pretty knowledgeable with Guild Wars, I do like to play in my own time and on my own terms.

It's not heroes "ruining the game", it's just people playing how they want to play. If many people would rather play with themselves with heroes or with heroes/henchies, you shouldn't just outright ban or limit the soloing options. You have to look at *why* people prefer the soloing options.

And that's why there will be no need of parties in GW2.

JDRyder

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Apr 2007

Great temple of Balthazar

Mo/Me

08 Sep 2008 at 00:16 - 1392

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

That's quite a broad assumption. Nonetheless, even though Amy pretty much summed up my thoughts, I don't think ANet should be accountable for that kind of stupid.

how is adding 7heros going to help?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

Odd, you now seem to imply that it's mostly bad players that use heroes? An earlier complaint was that the demise of PuGs was due to the good players using hero's and avoiding PuGs and thus lowering the overall quality of PuGs.

bad yes, better than some 1 who just started playing yes, but not good players. It does lower the quality of the pugs cause at least the players that use heros know that mending is bad "or at least i hope so" and the new players dont.

+ no matter what if you play with other players you learn more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

People avoid PuGs not because of some their faults, but because there's something about PuGs that they don't like, it's a fault in PuGs and to bring people back to PuGs you have to address the faults in PuGs.

most the people that avoid pugs are bad themselves, but just dont know it cause they have not seen how far the skill curve goes

Inner Salbat

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Oct 2005

Leader - ANZAC

E/

08 Sep 2008 at 01:33 - 1393

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Thats not the reason they died. They died because of the creation of heros and the release of expansions that spread the population out. Many outposts don't have players anymore, and the ones that do have players are infested with H/H soloers.

You missed a dynamic out there, it's also the creation of content that is very time consuming for example vanquishing areas can be extreme time consuming some areas on the wiki denote that it takes 3-4 hours to do just one area, that is just not PuG material, that is Guild Group or H/H material I am yet to ever see someone or group of someones looking for a group in any outpost over the course of time when I gained Legendary Vanquisher and that was about the same for the Missions too I think my total goes like this over the chapters.

3 areas Vanquished with Guild mates.
1 area vanquished with a friend (who used to be in my guild)
3 missions completed with Guild mates.
0 PuG groups, because no one was requesting or building a party.

I would say there never is anyone looking to vanquish as a group of people, and there is rarely a chance that you'll find someone to do missions in hm.

That goes for factions as well in the missions where you might expect the other team to have a human player on it, so you might say that the death of PuGs was due to adding time consuming content like titles as well, add to that a game that is not getting any large new content and is 3 years old, it's not surprising that it's on the way to the grave yard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRyder

most the people that avoid pugs are bad themselves, but just dont know it cause they have not seen how far the skill curve goes

There you go calling 90% of the guild wars community bad again anyone else feel insulted by this?

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

08 Sep 2008 at 01:51 - 1394

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRyder

how is adding 7heros going to help?

By keeping these ignorant, selfish, and unhealthy players out of our PUGs.

This is still according to you, by the way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRyder

most the people that avoid pugs are bad themselves...

True, but most of them use henchies instead, so blame henchies. As I've stated numerous times, you're not going to find much use with heroes if you give them a sucky build.

Either way, I can't help but felt that that's too broad of a generalization. "Being bad" is just one of many reasons people don't like to PUG.

garethporlest18

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jan 2006

[HiDe]

W/

08 Sep 2008 at 02:07 - 1395

I want 7 heroes because Prophecies henchies have bad builds, so do Faction henchies and since everyone in Guild Wars has the IQ of a rock it's kind of silly to play with them as it's just like BIG DOMOG ELEMANTLEIST CHAEEERGE. I don't want to play with that.

Tender Wolf

Banned

Join Date: Jul 2007

All over Tyria, Cantha, & Elona

The Eternal Night Vanguard [TEN]

R/

08 Sep 2008 at 02:16 - 1396

I'd like to have 7 heroes for these reasons:

When it's hard to get a PUG, heroes are always nice
I find heroes to be more reliable than actual players, but henchies not so much

Reasons why I wouldn't:

Sometimes even a full team of heroes wouldn't help me with some of the harder quests/missions/dungeons, so it would be best to have an expert friend come along with his/her heroes (though with more hero options he/she could bring more heroes)

Those are my thoughts, at least for now.

Damian979

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: May 2008

08 Sep 2008 at 03:42 - 1397

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyla

You're pretty retarded if you think build wars is a good idea, which is what "learn to counter skills" means. A common balanced build is very tight, but if you have to prepare for more and more different things and take a more defensive, one-sided approach you end up having an inflexible build that can't combat much at all.

"Really survive in PvP" isn't the case at all, because if you have some uber awesome 1337 counter to X build, but it fails against Y build and maybe Z build because your bar isn't designed to combat Y or Z build, which degenerates into build wars.

Wouldn't have expected less from the queen of "itz so unfair".

When last I checked the idea was to have a build that will succeed over your opponents. The "build wars" you so affectionately refer to is the point of the game. If you are a damage class you come up with a build that can do effective damage, complete the objective, counter what you might run into, and keep you alive in the process. If you are there for support you, shut down the enemy, and/or you support your team. It's not rocket science.

A "common" balanced build is just that, common. The neutered and poorly thought out PvP structure doesn't allow a great deal of variation. There aren't a whole lot of surprises and it's boring as hell to play PvP anymore.

"Retarded" imo would be the fact you would promote boring gameplay with mediocre, watered down PvP version skills because you consider the possibility of a greater challenge to be so "unbalanced".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyla

In other words, (going back to the Cultist's Doom Spikers here) you'd blame someone for losing if they were using a build not equally as powerful?

No, I don't blame someone for losing. I just blame them if they don't ever want to get better.

Tyla

Emo Goth Italics

Join Date: Sep 2006

08 Sep 2008 at 06:39 - 1398

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damian979

Wouldn't have expected less from the queen of "itz so unfair".

When last I checked the idea was to have a build that will succeed over your opponents. The "build wars" you so affectionately refer to is the point of the game. If you are a damage class you come up with a build that can do effective damage, complete the objective, counter what you might run into, and keep you alive in the process. If you are there for support you, shut down the enemy, and/or you support your team. It's not rocket science.

Wouldn't of expected less from another person who thinks Rock Paper Scissors is fun.

A competetive game should never, never rely on the builds used. It should rely on the skill levels of players and not build vs. build, which forces you to take up more bar space and end up being successful or unsuccessful against X, Y or Z. Now, looking into that, you'll see that opening skill slots through making the meta less "Bring X skill please" will actually include more variation through opening skill slots.

Quote:

A "common" balanced build is just that, common. The neutered and poorly thought out PvP structure doesn't allow a great deal of variation. There aren't a whole lot of surprises and it's boring as hell to play PvP anymore.

You want variation, killing rock paper scissors will actually open more variation and at the same time make the game a game of skill over a game of chance.

Quote:

"Retarded" imo would be the fact you would promote boring gameplay with mediocre, watered down PvP version skills because you consider the possibility of a greater challenge to be so "unbalanced".

In PvP, the skills are tools which are given to players. You can give everyone in the game exactly the same skills with equipment sets and armour sets and want me to tell you where the real difficulty lies? Within the skill level and tactical choices of your oponent.

Quote:

No, I don't blame someone for losing. I just blame them if they don't ever want to get better.

So why do you defend these things?

Taking a stronger approach to alot of hexing would require more bar spots. A heavy physical meta would mean that you'd need more mitigation than your common stuff. If a certain condition pressure build practically needs Foul Feast or a very precise interrupt / divert to be beaten, for example SoM before it got nerfed, there is something wrong. SoM basically had your melee blind for most of the time, while without an FF Necro my Monk is spamming condi removal on recharge.

Honestly though, if you really think rock-paper-scissors in a competetive game is good, I have absolutely nothing left to say to you.

Turbobusa

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jan 2006

By the Luxon Scavenger

The Mentalists [THPK]

N/

08 Sep 2008 at 06:49 - 1399

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damian979

"Retarded" imo would be the fact you would promote boring gameplay with mediocre, watered down PvP version skills because you consider the possibility of a greater challenge to be so "unbalanced".

Ho wow. I've tried to say it many times but this is very well phrased. GJ and QFT.

As for the topic, I'm not sure... Henchies aren't that bad except in prophecies, and it leaves *some* challenge. 7Heroes would be win instantly.

Avarre

Bubblegum Patrol

Join Date: Dec 2005

Singapore Armed Forces

08 Sep 2008 at 06:55 - 1400

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

As I said above, the pertinent question is what the threshold for 'imba' is - and who is qualified to determine it.

That would be the experienced players that have a strong grasp of game mechanics and design.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damian979

"Retarded" imo would be the fact you would promote boring gameplay with mediocre, watered down PvP version skills because you consider the possibility of a greater challenge to be so "unbalanced".

Hahahaha.

C-spacing for victory in all cases is not exciting play, champ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inner Salbat

There you go calling 90% of the guild wars community bad again anyone else feel insulted by this?

A rather conservative estimate, I must say. There's nothing to be insulted over anyway - player skill doesn't mean a thing in PvE.

Inner Salbat

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Oct 2005

Leader - ANZAC

E/

08 Sep 2008 at 07:14 - 1401

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyla

A competetive game should never, never rely on the builds used. It should rely on the skill levels of players and not build vs. build, which forces you to take up more bar space and end up being successful or unsuccessful against X, Y or Z. Now, looking into that, you'll see that opening skill slots through making the meta less "Bring X skill please" will actually include more variation through opening skill slots.

And that is why I don't PvP if I wanted a game of lotto I would by a lotto ticket I've got just as much chance at winning division 1 as I have winning a match in GW, okay that a massive over exaduration but still.

I PvE because my chances of obtaining my goals are much higher the rewards are subjectively more immediate, right now at this exact moment I'm standing in Drakkar Lake watching the patrols calculating my best chance to clear the frozen lake in hm, which mobs I can pull out and to where, etc.

If the argument is that 7 heros would over power PvP then the solution is simple they shouldn't be in PvP in the first place or they should rename it too, PvPvE.

JDRyder

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Apr 2007

Great temple of Balthazar

Mo/Me

08 Sep 2008 at 09:21 - 1402

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

By keeping these ignorant, selfish, and unhealthy players out of our PUGs.

This is still according to you, by the way.

according to you, they dont Pug now, or people can just not be dick heads to others.

Powermaster

Banned

Join Date: Sep 2008

08 Sep 2008 at 09:25 - 1403

If anet adds 7 heros ppl will most likely buy GW2 with more excitement.

Numa Pompilius

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: May 2005

At an Insit.. Intis... a house.

Live Forever Or Die Trying [GLHF]

W/Me

08 Sep 2008 at 09:48 - 1404

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inner Salbat

And that is why I don't PvP if I wanted a game of lotto I would by a lotto ticket I've got just as much chance at winning division 1 as I have winning a match in GW, okay that a massive over exaduration but still.

The fact that build not individual skill is what determines who wins and loses in GW, with each match basically a game of paper-scissors-rock, is why I don't PvP.
I don't mind PvP, my background is as a competitive FPS gamer, but the skill in GW PvP is mainly the skill of making builds, not the skill in using them.

Yeah, there's some amount of tactics involved too, but if your build is wrong you're screwed no matter how skilled you are, and that just rubs me the wrong way.

I really don't see what this has to do with 7 heroes, though. If people don't want 7-hero-teams in PvP then ban hero teams from entering, problem solved.