A discussion on 7 heroes

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Despite what Draikin posted above, many people DO believe that PuGs have advantages (and are possibly superior) to H/H using the current system. And it is those players (especially those that have issues with henchmen and their limitations that would rather PuG than use them) that WOULD be impacted by a switch to seven heroes.

I'd like to hear you reconcile these two thoughts. So, PuGs are more powerful than seven heroes, yet seven heroes are better than PuGs? Whut?

I would believe that a large majority of the population would be upset if A-Net took away the ability to PuG. I believe that is why A-Net tried to improve the party/trading screen to make it easier to group with random people.

Talking in absolutes (e.g. "there ain't be no reason to not give me my dang 7 heroes, so shutz up") is never a good position to take in having a rational conversation about an issue that A-Net has voiced their opinion on.

Reading comprehention classes FTW...


I'll put this in other words.

I never said PuG's are better then heros in most cases. In fact, I never even refered to an actual PuG in the first staement you quote. I simply said heros do not have the ability to think, unlike humans. PuG's are inferior to heros in most cases because of the skill level of the players. Heros are superior because they do not lack skill, only judgement, which most people don't use anyway. Therefore, Seven heros are niether beter or worse than PuGs depending on luck of the draw. It would just take that luck away and allow you to find a "Good Group" this being your heros, faster.

Either way, a skilled group of friends, such a guild group, will always do better because they have the ability to think.


And I made the comparison with PuGs that they are not a very social aspect of the game, which people make them out to be, so taking them out would not do much to the social end. I said nothing about Guild groups and such, nor do I say that's the actual case, as in the quote "This is not even the case in question"

I never said people would not be upset, I only said, people that think that PuGs are a huge social aspect would be upset for a horrid and wrong reason.



And many arguments in American Congress that are well put end in Absolutes. Besides, it drives people to counter an absolute more than an argument. God forbid I want to debate with someone who puts half their behind into it. Abolutes make people mad sometimes, and therefore drive them more in their replies. Basic Psychology.


And yes, I came here to debate. Not to point something out and leave.

This is so ironic I won't even bother to comment.

Rational arguments, by their nature, forces both parties to understand and acknowledge the other points of view brought into the debate. Debating from a stand of absolutes is one of the poorest forms of debate one can have. Citing the United States Congress and the relative lack of progress they've made on key national issues is a bit ironic, especially since many of the "absolute" arguments posed there are cited as "rhetoric that gets nowhere."

But back to the point at hand...

So, in your view, the multiplayer aspect of the game should be isolated to playing with either guildmates or friends, and not based on the random PuG encounter? If that is the case, then if you simply don't know that many people in game, you're basically S.O.L. if you want to play with someone else? Ouch, that's a pretty harsh view.

In short, the "seven heroes would be overpowered" argument, in my opinion, isn't based on whether someone could simply put seven heroes in his party, walk away from the computer, and have the computer "autokill" everything on the screen. It's about whether, when presented with the choice between the seven hero party and a PuG party, the overwhelming, more powerful choice would be to take the seven heroes.

That, in and of itself, could have a dramatic impact on the availability of PuGs in the future. If I'm "comprehenting" your post right, is it your position that you really don't care what happens to PuGs (and that no one should)?

Guilds =/= PUGs, which is what adding 7 heroes is mostly concerning. Guilds are fine.

This too got lost in the rubble:

Interesting. I was under the assumption that Unwaking Waters and Eternal Grove were problems because people were rarely there. This is an instance where having 7 heroes would actually be a good idea.

This is QFT.

My point is that the introduction of 7 heroes has the potential to create more "ghost towns" like those two mission areas.

For example, I can easily see missions such as Tahannkai (sp?) Temple, Gyala Hatchery, Jennur's Horde, etc. becoming relatively void of PuGs (like Unwaking Waters/Eternal Grove are today).

Then it wouldn't hurt to be more specific. Unwaking Waters and Eternal Grove - among many others - are best known for being devoid of people, even before NF was released. That's a big reason why Heroes were developed in the first place.

So these people that are in the middle, these people that if given the option of 7 heroes would want it, shouldnt have it...because they want it?
They are at a point where heroes would suit them more, would make playing easier (not in terms of skill required but again for the reasons stated before. Time, multiple afk etc).

As it stands your saying people should be made to pug because the people who like to pug need to have others to pug with.
These people will always be able to pug. Yes having 7 heroes will take away some from that "middle camp" but everyone that wants to pug still can. Everyone that doesnt can go ahead and do that as well.

There will always be people to pug with. In the areas that no one really visits anymore anyway (Where you wouldnt have gotten a team without a guild/alliance) people wont have to wait or visit forums to try and arrange a team. You can just go ahead and do it.

A guild/friend/alliance group isnt a pug




When it comes down to it this change will have a minor negative effect on some players. They will still be able to play the game how they want however. Nothing will stop them from pugging.

It also gives a major positive to a huge ammount of players. Casual players far outnumber anyone else. They will now be able to play the game how they want, without being punished for that choice. They will also be able to possibly do parts of the game they couldnt otherwise do.


So the "puggers" loose some people to pug with. The casual player gains the ability to play the way they want and access to new areas (due to time/afk reasons they can walk away and when they come back no one has left).

To me that seems like a very good trade off.

For me personally, I place no value in PuGs. In fact, I get annoyed when I enter a town or outpost and someone invites me to join w/o any communications. I have no desire to argue any of this as I see it as a purely subjective point. It all depends on how you like to play the game.

Isileth - very good posts and points. I think the whole PUG dilemma that GW1 is going through right now could be a very big reason why GW2 will have the option of playing solo or with people.

This is where the PuG argument hits home. There are currently very limited places in the game where it is very, very difficult to find a PuG. As you state above, in those instances, players are basically FORCED (like how I twisted that classical argument around? ) to play with AI because of a lack of other players there.

So, "players that want to PuG" currently are unable to do so in those areas.

The introduction of seven heroes, as you acknowledge above, will likely remove more players from the multiplayer landscape, which will exacerbate that problem. As I state above, there are many MISSION towns that are borderline ghost towns right now. My concern is that the introduction of seven heroes will push those towns "over the edge", and then start to spread to other towns where it is difficult, but not insanely hard, to get a PuG together.

So, again, "players that want to PuG still can" is now becoming more and more a platitude than a reality. How can accelerating the number of towns that are devoid of human players be a good thing for GW, which advertises the CHOICE of playing either solo or multiplayer? Or should it begin advertising "you can play multiplayer ONLY in certain areas of the game?"

So your complaint, in essence, is that 7 heroes will give people the option not to play PUG, thus making it harder for those of you that do want to PUG. In other words, your ability to play the game the way you want to is more important than their ability to play the game the way they want to.

This is why I don't PUG, I refuse to play with people that think their enjoyment of the game is more important than mine. I play with friends and I H/H. Anet can make the latter more enjoyable for me, and allow me access to the whole game, by allowing 7 heroes. Failing that, I'll make do with what I've got, and when GW2 rolls down the line I'll remember that Anet thought forcing me to play well with others was more important than giving me access to the whole game I paid for.

And that is the key point.

If there are not enough to pug does that not suggest that people would rather play solo in those areas?

From what I can tell by your post you are saying because some people want to play in a team, those that dont should be made to. Its a choice, and it seems people are chosing to play solo. As I said the casual player far outnumbers anyone else, so it isnt all that suprising that a feature that helps the casual player to be able to play is the one being picked the most.


And now to do that fun little twist the argument thing myself
Should it be advertised "You can play solo or multiplayer, but we would prefer you to team. So much so we have added the incentive of making the solo option weaker."

The options are there, as I said Anet have allowed the casual player to do a whole lot more than most other games, however they arent at all balanced.

And in reply to you being forced into using AI due to lack of players. Would you rather there wasnt any AI? Then you wouldnt be able to do it at all!
No one is forcing you to go with them. There just arent enough people there. This would be the same even without h/h. There are some areas that people dont visit all that often, often they are off the beaten track or only have 1-2 missions in the area. You cant expect a team waiting for you at every stop.

That is why the henchmen/heroes are so handy to the non casual player. At some point there will be an area you cant do with a full pug (unless you wait for a long time or arrange it beforehand).

That's what all of the opposition crowd is saying, and always has been saying. Their excuse is "it's a multiplayer game," despite the fact that if it had been advertised as a game where you could ONLY play by teaming with other people most of the folks they're trying to force to play with them would never have bought the game in the first place.

Take henchmen and heroes out of the game and watch how many people are left to PUG with. The game would be a ghost town overnight.

PuGs are not the be all and end all of multiplayer play.
The option of playing with other people are still there. It is still a multiplayer game if you want it to be. 7 heroes would not change that. It is up to you to be adult enough to work out how find people to play with. ie. If there's no PuGs forming, put that friends list, guild and alliance chat to use.
Not wait for mommy Anet to set up a playdate for you with some kids that frankly don't want to share your sandbox because you really do smell.

Really, as someone who enjoys pugging when I have the time to do it. The last thing I want is people in a PuG who'd rather not play that game. People that are 'forced' into having to join up with a group of strangers for whatever reason.

Have you considered that exactly the opposite may happen? For example there would be a lot of people using full hero parties to complete DoA (which is currently almost deserted, the only groups there are the ones duo farming), which would actually result in more people being there. Eventually there would also be people that decide to form a PuG instead of going with seven heroes, which would mean other people that only PuG might have a chance at finding a team again.

What shirosae wrote (on page 7) is probably one of the most true statements about the Guild Wars game.

As shirosae wrote, Guild Wars is really bad at filtering out players. For explorable areas, three max level heroes running some kind of half-decent build combined with a balanced team of henchmen is enough to get through just about every explorable area and a large number of missions (or dungeons). In fact, with very few exceptions, you can actually have 7 H/H practically do all the work and you could run all kinds of really stupid builds and never realize that you're not helping the team much. Party wipes or other mishaps could be explained to external factors like "dumb hero/hench A.I." (which it is pretty dumb sometimes). As a result, players simply don't get better, because they never even know that they are playing wrong.

Take it from me. I've seen even ultra-bad builds even in Dzagonur Bastion in Hard Mode, where you have to run a great team and great builds to get Masters.

In some ways, I can see why people say that heroes/henchmen have killed PUGs, and ANet is absolutely in this camp and they will never change it for GW1 no matter how many people beg and plead. We can only hope that GW2 will fix the problem.

Conversely, I could argue that having seven heroes or not, many players are not really improving their play regardless.

Some of the problem is just the game engine itself. The game basically has monsters auto-aggro on the perceived-weakest player in the team. The computer automatically knows who has DP, who has low armor, and who's got the smallest amount of health, and then it automatically goes after that player. I'd say a large number of players in the game will probably use NPCs to explore or do simple quests, because nobody has time to stand around town and spam "LFG", and many times your guildies are just as busy as you are. As a result, players get used to the idea that H/H just huddle around you and aggro is thrown all over the team. Also, H/H often automatically focus fire and follow your lead if you change targets in mid-battle, and they follow you around without being told.

End result? Once players start working in a human team, they continue playing as they always have. Monsters just wail on anybody and everybody in the party, nobody needs to call any targets, and you can run off in some crazy direction and expect the rest of the party to keep up. While Mhenlo will never rage quit if he starts tanking all day, human monks will not tolerate a prolonged game with a lack of protection.

Another big problem is that Guild Wars takes a crazy amount of time if you want to accomplish something significant. Most console games are broken down into roughly 15 to 20 minute segments and they throw in a save point at those intervals. It prevents gamer fatigue and that's really important. But if you're visiting a Guild Wars dungeon for the first time, it will probably take you at least an hour to complete with no breaks and (of course) no save points. I'm talking about the "casual" gamer, and not the guys that brag about killing Duncan The Black in 7 minutes flat. If you want to take a break, then forget about bring random human players. So in some ways, GW itself practically encourages NPCs.

What it boils down to is people that pug would not sudenly decide that 7 heros are better, they are not. 7 hero is an option that would help out those that do not log on in active times or who have time constraints or playstyles that does not match other players.

How often have you joined a pug to have the very first thing they said to you be 'Ping your build'?

If I wish to take the time to put together a pug team to take on a mission or quest or dungeon I will always have that option. What we would like is the option to use 7 heros as well. Yes hench have improved, but that doesnt mean every possible skill bar in the hench will mesh with the party build I want to run in a certain area.

If you go to unwaking waters now and nobody is there, how will that change once you have 7 heros? Is it that when you get there instead of sitting around and waiting for 30-60 min you just put together your Heros and go? Well yes but then what do you do now? You put together your heros/hench and go. If you were going to wait before your going to wait regardless of how many heros are availible.

The big differance is with 7 heros you stand a much better chance of completing the mission. And as has been stated before forcing people to set an entire partys skill bars will teach them more about how to play the game.

Seeing what a total party build is, then realizing how much better it would run if live people were running those builds you set on your Heros just might lead some people back to pugs. As it is now they need a monk they grab a hench, no thought to what monk build or how it works, ele, grab the earth/fire and go. Do they think about how many hitpoints? What skills the ele has that might help there party or work well with the tanks build? NO.

Though I have to agree the argument is pointless, Anet will not impliment this except as a last resort after GW2 is released.

I have a good RL friend that plays GW from time to time.
She has better social skills than the average PuG member, but has about the same playing style and skills as the average PuG member.
She has a busy schedule and has to AFK from time to time because of her kids, so she is the ideal occassional PuG player that plays H&H most of the time. Things like GWG, GWO and wiki are unknown to her.

Now, I give her 7 heroes instead of the 3 she has now.

Will the builds get better? Probably not.
The majority of the game is easy to beat, even with so/so skilled hero builds.
Just looking at some of her hero builds made me cry. Still she completed Proph. and a large part of NF so far. EotN is also beaten slowly.

Will her gameplay improve? Probably not.
It will still be based on H&H tactics, which are very different from full-party gameplay.

Arguing that 7 heroes would make her a better player is wishfull thinking.
So the 7 heroes would most likely benefit the more advanced players and not the average.

One thing that would make my friend a better player is playing with other humans and learning how individual and team builds work.
Learn how to play in a human team.
There are two ways of doing that:
* PuG
* Guild

But how to find a decent guild when you don't visit forums?
Join the random ones adverticed in outposts?
Have luck with someone on your friends list?
How did people on your friends list get there in the first place?

While I am not opposed to 7 heroes in general I still have not seen a real need (not nice to have) compared to H&H, except for a few missions/areas.
Sure, it would make the game easier, but it's not (almost) impossible now (except a few places).
Identifying those spots and ask for a solution might be a solution there might be the better option compared to asking for the generic 7 heroes which A-net is not willing to give.
Convince them there is a NEED and not a WANT and they might change their mind (or fix a particular area/mission).

I've had a couple more thoughts about all of this.

The problem, as i see it, is that Heros are actually kinda bad in all ways other than multi-targetting and reaction speed, but that the average player is even worse. If true, that means that 7H isn't actually the problem. The problem is that the skill levels are so low for so many people.

It seems to me that the '7H = no more PUG' problem goes away if you stop people from sucking so bad, and PUGs naturally become better than 7H. I have an idea:

Disclaimer: This idea is ridiculously far fetched and won't be introduced into GW because it's such a huge amount of effort for no financial gain on the part of Anet. Any similarities to persons live or dead is purely co-incidental and no correspondan



Remember the profession training stuff from the Monastery in Factions?

Imagine that you enter mission outpost #1. There's an enter mission NPC/button, but there's also a training mission.

This training mission can be done only with 7 Heroes. During this mission, you are given a goal. Maybe this goal is specific to your profession (pull the groups individually with a bow, Warrior. Daze the Healers, Ranger). Maybe it's that you're given a screen detailing the builds you're going to come up against, and need to create a team build which actually includes stuff like Enchantment removal.

If you pass these training missions, you're given a displayable award for each. Maybe these take the form of a title track that you can display when looking for group.

People looking for a Monk can look for one with a title that translates to "I can pre-prot players and don't use rebirth". Maybe they can look for a Ranger that has "I know i don't use a Bow for DPS unless i'm spreading degen, also d-shot > all".


The advantage of this kind of system is that people are not excluded from obtaining those titles (because they're essentially solo tests of skill/understanding). They also give people looking for players the ability to decide whether they want to take only experienced players, or risk it on an unranked.

Also, obtaining these titles wouldn't be some ridiculous grind. You do a mission, and if you understand the purpose of the exercise, that's it. One success and you're done, unless you suck and refuse to learn and fail over and over. Of course, if you do suck and refuse to learn, you can still do the regular storyline missions if people/guildies/whoever will take you or if you want to use 7H.

In addition, this offers an advantage to not sucking and doing the training missions: you get groups faster.


Balancing those missions would be a nightmare though. You'd need to weight the tasks to heavily require the role you were supposed to be performing. They'd also need to be difficult enough to require skill, and not a trip to PvX Wiki.

Also, you'd need to be careful that you didn't get people in the first mission outpost doing nonsense like "LFG LEVEL 20 'I DONT SUCK' TITLE TRACK ONLY". Maybe you could cap the displayable training rank based on outpost unless you were in Hard Mode or something, so everyone in the first mission outpost where the first training mission is can only display rank 1 training.

I can almost see it being a little like the Bison tournament. You go into an outpost, pass the mission, and instead of gaining a silly hat, you get a displayable note that states you passed. Of course, it wouldn't be the Bison tournament, but that's a different issue.


It'd need to be thought through carefully, but the point is this: Introduce ways for people to learn how not to suck in the game itself. Make it so that people can not suck without going to all sorts of external locations.

As soon as the level of player skill in the game rises, or people can determine who has skill and who doesn't, PUGs are safe regardless of what you do to heros, because a good human player is almost five billion times better than a hero and always will be.

For me, the problem isnt the skill level of pugs.

As I have said before its the time issues, multiple afk etc.

Improving the level of skill in pugs (Which for fairly obvious reasons wouldnt actually work anyway) wouldnt solve any of those problems.


Is it not a need that a casual player is unable to access high end areas because they dont have the time?
Is it not a need that the casual player is forced into a weaker team because they dont have time to find a pug?
Is it not a need that someone who has to go afk often has to join a weaker team?
Is it not a need that someone has to join a weaker team because very few pugs will accept their class?


And also in reply to that 7 in HM only suggestions.

I disagree with that as well

Still doesnt solve the issues of the casual player in NM.

This is very simple...
SKILLED players > Heros
Heros > average player
3 games + 1 expansion = Lack of player base in many areas

Lack of skilled players available to help and inferior henchmen are serious problems for the average player to run any type of congruent build, thus necessitating 7 heros as opposed to the 3 heros and 4 broken henchmen that are available to us now.

Actually, other than in the "elite" areas (which I completely disagree with, by the way), you currently have the OPTION to play solo with AI. If seven heroes were instituted, I'm afraid that those who want to participate in a multiplayer PuG will not have ANY OPTION to do so in many areas of the game. It's not about "playing one way being better than playing another way" - it's about even having the CHOICE to do so!

That is currently true in a few remote areas of the game. Again, my point is that the number of those areas would likely greatly accelerate if seven heroes were introduced, for the reasons I enumerated above. So, instead of not being able to PuG in 3-4 mission towns, that could become 10-15 mission towns. That starts to dramatically impact whether someone that wants to play the game in a multiplayer PuG will even have the option to do so at all for a material portion of the game.

Again, it's my opinion that the day that the multiplayer PvE scene is isolated to only playing with people that you know would be a sad day, especially to newer players in the game.

Regarding your second point, as I've said above, the group that I'm concerned would be impacted by this is NOT those that already use (or want to use) AI exclusively - it is those that are ambivalent (i.e. really don't care which one they use) to using AI or real people. What you've said above - that these ambivalent players are somehow "forced" to play with other people or actively "do not want to" play with other people goes against the very meaning of the word ambivalent.

QFT.

Why would anyone want to play with people that are coerced into a PuG.

That's obviously gonna make me real sociable. /sarcasm

just give us 7 heroes and get over it, if you want to PuG do so but leave the rest of us to play the game how we want to.

Actually, this was in game already: Ascension fight, where you were supposed outdoai with your build.

Main flaw is that is possible abuses.

You will get people who want "i dont suck" title, but wont put in brains. That means gimmick builds designed to beat each this challenge without much thinking. No matter what challenge you put to players, they will figure out how to make life easier for themselves.

Soon you will have, i.e. Mesmer interrupt challenge pwned by Me/R who brings BHA ... If you constrait build options, you just get more optimized builds. If you allow only one build, you will get detailed "how-to-beat" guildes on wiki which anyone could follow.

Bottom line is, if this hypothetical title would exist, people would want it asap to get to groups and will likely not learn stuff from it. Its MMO players mindset to have their "truth" about how something is played, if you make monk pass preprot-and-no-rebirth test, he will likely return to having rebirth on his bar and not use preprot but straight healing anyway (and will complain about this tutorial telling him stupid things, because heal other owns) Basically, any info will be discarded by people who should listen to it.

Think about it as farming: People are capable using 55 build without understanding thing about how it works. They take build AND follow instructions, and win. I wouldnt expect those tests to be any different, in worst case just follow instructions and win.

Your ranger-learns-dshot-power would turn to: target enemy and press 1 asap you see him cast fireball.

---

But players skill is only one pasrt of PUG problem, and minor one.

Unskilled "newbie" player who has no idea can still be converted to good players if he listens. And i would prefer him in group anyday over:

"noobs", people who refuse to learn and consider themselves godly already.

At first glance, you wont recognize which is which, thou noob will likely have 15 armor. They will usually have equally bad builds, but difference is in how they talk and how they react to constructive discussion.

This is highly, highly unlikely. Yes, there may be the rare circumstance that someone that was intending to use seven heroes would have a "change of heart" and decide to PuG instead, but I would gather that the number of multiplayer participants that would be added in that scenario would be far outweighed by the number of ambivalent players that would decide to use seven heroes over attempting to join a PuG.

My thinking wasn't that it'd be a small d-shot this dummy casting fireball 2 minute long exercise, but an actual mission. Like, imagine doing Gate of Pain, and being told specifically to d-shot the Tortureweb Dryders. Sure, you can d-shot the first thing you see... but then you die because the mission has been set up to steamroll you unless you d-shot the lynchpin of the enemy build.

But yes, balancing that to be an effective learning experience would be a nightmare, and the resilience of the argumentative stupidity of people knows no bounds.


But don't you see? The reason that people who otherwise would PUG but don't, is that they don't believe in the quality of PUGs. There are plenty of people who don't pug for other reasons like time, hassle of being with a group, whatever. But the people who could potentially be converted to PUGing avoid them due to the quality of the average GW player.

There are other issues, but as soon as you remove that omg-GW-pugs-suck issue, the pressure is alleviated from all the others. People slowly become willing to PUG, PUGs become commonly more effective than 7H, and 7H can't destroy what's left of PUGing.

The people who would normally listen to advice and learn would still do so from training/tutorials, and at least some of the people who won't will get stuck.

Some people would do whatever the mission requested and go back to sucking, i agree. It's a good point ...i don't know if there's any way to deal with those people.

Here I think you are really missing the point.
If this is limited to a few areas where people cant normally pug it doesnt help the casual player. They still have the same problems in all areas not effected by this change.



Its not about making a few areas that dont see much use possible to do with a decent team. Its about making all areas accessible to all players with the ability to run a decent team.


Adding 7 heroes will reduce the number of players to pug with less than adding a new game ever did. Infact it will go a long way to counter this as those dead areas will now be accessible with a decent team again.


And again you hit upon the key point.
At the moment people have the choice to pug.
People dont have the choice to solo in a decent team however.

With the change...
People who want to pug still can. It might be more limited than it is now but it will still be an option.
People who want to solo will now be able to do so with a team on the same level as a decent pug.


So 1 option becomes slightly limited.
BUT it introduces a whole new option that we never had before.

1 group of players gets a slight decrease in the ease of playing the game how they want.
Another group (And as stated earlier the larger group) gets to finally play how they want. This will also open up new areas to time limited players as well.

Why is the ability to pug as effectively as now more important than the ability to solo at the same level as a pug?

It is just a small decrease to one option while creating a whole new option.

I understood that you meant more complex missions. You wrote it actually.

But result is still same: Pres-1-when-you-see-enemy-cast-whatver-skill-it-is.

Besides, there is no difference between d-shoting dummy casting fireball and dshoting some other skill in mission at enemy in group. Instructions in how-2-beat sections on wiki will be nearly identical.

---

re2:

I will repeat my point: its not players failing to be good at GWs, its players failing to be good at being cooperative and generally good companions.

You can see a bit of this attittude right here in this thread: "I want other players to be forced to play with me by making their solo options sucky"

It has less to do with skill and more with attitude.

The reasons that people are giving for opposing this make absolutely no sense.
Lets say you want to vanquish FoW and don't have/can't find a guild that is at all intersted in doing this (or whatever your chosen task is)... most pugs fall apart right after they complete the forge quests... thats less than 1/3 of the total FoW. So your average player cannot complete a FoW vanquish becuase he/she cannot bring enough heros and henchmen cant go there, pugs fall apart, and there is NO build that can completely solo FoW/UW. So what are they to do? Anet should give 7 heros... period. If you want to use 3 and fill the other 4 with other players then please do so, if you want to use 2 heros and fill the rest with players/henchmen or whatever... thats fine too... but come on, why cant i use 7 heros if i need to do accomplish my goals.

Additionally there is really no need to add more heros to the storyline... for example the Zaishen fill in any needed holes (example: to get a full paragon team, anet could simply implement a recruitable Zaishen paragon that can be recruited infinatly to fill the other 5 slots) and the player can then equip the heros Zaishen paragon recruit (1), Zaishen paragon recruit (2), etc. as we already equip the heros we have. This would add more flexibility to builds and allow any player to choose how he/she wants to play without much work (adding hero storylines and skins).

I do understand this point, but only up to the point where there are no (high level) hench are available.
However, that's a 'fix this area' request and not a generic 'give us 7 heroes, because we need them'.

H&H the weaker team?
When I read this thread a lot of the postings I see read behind the lines various rants that boil down to 'PuGs suck'.
And now you are telling me that H&H is even worse than PuG?
Sorry, I am not really buying that as an argument.

Now there are some decent PuGs out there that outperform H&H and you might be lucky enough to find those.
In that case the H&H would give a disadvantage. I agree on that part.

With both GWEN and NF, it should now be able to assemble a team that is up to about any task.
I know there are some areas where this is not possible and I do understand the request for better grouping possibilities there.
However, the generic solution of 7 heroes is overkill.

This is where we differ. I believe this could be a removal of an option (i.e. not being able to PuG in many areas) compared to enhancing an existing option (replacing 4 henchmen with 4 heroes).

As I've said in other threads, I am wholeheartedly in support of providing AI (i.e. H/H) in areas that currently do not allow them (e.g. The Deep, Urgoz, DoA, UW, FoW), as I believe that AI users should have the OPTION of using them in all areas.

Didn't you just say that those ambivalent players are the ones that "really don't care which one they use"? If they don't care, why is it suddenly "unlikely" that they would still join PuGs when they are available? You're jumping to conclusions yourself here. Apparently the mere thought that including 7 heroes might have an impact on PuGs is enough for Anet to dismiss the idea altogether, which is the main reason you constantly see threads, polls, petitions, e-mails, etc... appear time and time again simply because the community doesn't understand that kind of reasoning.

The ambivalence exists today when comparing a PuG to a H/H party. I believe that the preference would be swayed to using AI if 7 heroes were introduced, for both efficiency and power reasons.

Perhaps high end areas wasnt really the best term to use. Its really any area that takes a long time to complete, so the high end areas just spring to mind instantly. But this also includes dungeons and stuff like vanquishing.
So we arent talking about a few areas. We are talking about most of the game. (since HM is the same size + all the high end areas in NM)

We are taking into account here that h/h can never be as powerful as a team of players. A bad pug can often be worse than h/h yes. But running h/h you can never have a decent team. You have a fairly "meh" team at best. It might be better than a good portion of pugs but you are still at a disadvantage to any good pugs and anyone that plays with a guild/alliance etc has a huge advantage over you.





As has been stated before, the option to pug wouldnt suddenly dissapear. There are many like yourself that will always want to pug. They will continue.

As for enchancing an existing option, yes when it comes down to it thats what it is. However when that "option" results in you being weaker than someone who takes the other option. Is it really a fair option?

People who can only use h/h are being forced into a weaker team, essentially casual players are being punished because they cant dedicate enough time to the game. (Please note I am not at all suggesting Anet did this on purpose, as I said they allow the casual gamer a lot more than most games. However when it comes down to it there is a big difference between the options so there is a punishment for playing a certain way)


And again this will not remove the option of playing in a pug. There are plently of people out there who prefer pugging and so will cary on. Then there are guilds/alliances/friends that you can also play with. You will not be stopped from playing with real players. That option will always remain. It just might take a little longer to form a team unless you have friends online.

However the advantage is that the option of going solo reaches the same level as going in a pug. Meaning the casual player isnt punished.


Please note im counting a full Hero team to be on about level with a standard pug.
Reasons are while Heroes will react faster, follow calls etc.
They wont move out of AoE, they will happily interrupt pointless skills, they dont offer advice on a mission that a player can, you cant really split your team to cover 2 objs (You can but then all control over targeting, AoE etc is lost. So most of the time death follows swiftly).


Quick edit to reply to Jetdocs above post

Again, and I had hoped people had realised this point by now, a hero team is not more powerful than a team of players. It really isnt a valid argument simply because it isnt true. A decent team of players will far outclass a team of heroes. (Note a decent team of players, obviousely bad players are going to be...well bad)

Also again you state these people would prefer this option. So why would it be a bad thing for these people to get what they would prefer? It would take some players away from the option you prefer.
Why is that the right option? Why should the 2 not be balanced? People should not be forced to pug just to have a decent team. Then those that cant pug are forced to have the weaker team no matter what!
However, those that want to pug, those that prefer it, will carry on pugging. Losing some players who would prefer not to pug will not stop pugging.

but you are still saying that your way of playing is better than ours. I, still, have not seen a valid reason to not introduce 7 heros.

I have a wife and 2 kids. If my wife needs me in the middle of DoA, you think the "elite" players in there would give a shit? No. OMG DUMBASS WARRIOR YOU SUX0RZ" is what they would say. 7 Heros gives me an opportunity to actually SEE some of these elite areas (because, after all, I did pay anet to give me access/free will to play these areas).

Do I care about your pugs? No. I could care less if they were non exsistant. hell, the local chat MIGHT actually include somewhat of a discussion, instead of 'omg noone invite warx hes a total nubcakez loflrofl.' Should you care about 7 heros? No. You should care less also. Why? My gaming has absolutely NOTHING to do with you. I enjoy my time with my heros, and you enjoy your time with your pugs. So please, give me a valid reason to interupt MY gameplay because you think yours is better.

1. As I said above, I believe that the number of "ghost towns" out there would increase with the introduction of seven heroes. This effectively removes the option to PuG in those towns.

2. There are many people in this thread and other threads that disagree with you - many people believe that seven heroes are more powerful than your standard PuG (e.g. the "PuG's suck" commentary you find in many of these threads). Aiiane has a great article on this that I posted earlier in the thread. You may be swapping out "standard PuG" for "full guild/alliance group" in your thought above.

It has absolutely nothing to do with saying that one person's style of gameplay is better than another's.

What you have to realize that not everyone in the game is either in the camp of (1) I only use AI or (2) I only use PuGs. It is the impact of the introduction of seven heroes on THOSE "middle" players, and how that adversely impacts the availability of PuGs, that is the concern.

You have to focus on how something that would benefit you would impact (both directly and indirectly) others when evaluating whether a change should be made.

Yes the number of people pugging will drop. But they dont want to pug so why should they be forced to? Also it wont drop to the point no one will be able to pug. There will always be people who prefer to pug.



No I assure you im refering to a pug not a guild/alliance group.
Pugs can build 8 bars to counter the coming area, a h/h team can only customize 4. That is a huge difference on its own.
Then factor in the wasteful ints, refusal to move out of AoE etc and you can see why the current teams are hugely inferior.

Now take a team of 7 heroes. You can customize all 8 bars.
They still will waste ints, they will still stand in AoE, they wont kite, they wont stand in wards, they cant combo skills, they have general poor skill usage (MS cast when only 1 thing is left alive for example). The list goes on.

Can you see now why a pug is extremely superior to the current h/h setup and still has massive advantages over the 7 hero teams. Pugging would remain the better method, but it would increase solo to a point where its a valid option. And those that have to take h/h will actually be able to experience more of GW.



Edit again to include Jetdocs last edit (Stop typing so fast )

So those middle players who given the option of 7 heroes would take it over a pug. The fact they would prefer to go with 7 heroes than a pug counts for nothing? We shouldnt look at it as more people this change would benefit, but we should see it as taking them away from another option?

It wouldnt take anyone away. They would CHOOSE to go with 7 heroes. Therefore not only would this change benefit the casual player but also people who are in the middle camp.

The reason they arent going solo currently is because the options arent balanced. To play in the way they would prefer they would be weakened. So they choose not to.

Couldn't have said it better myself, give me a valid reason why I should give a shit about how others play the game? I don't. So why others should dictate how I play is idiotic.

If you want to PuG, PuG. But don't gimp my play style for some idealistic reason that I might want to socialize, because, I don't.

When I want to socialize I'll go out with my Family and Friends, when I want to play a game I'll play that game how I want to and not how others would want me to.

I have created an official Petition to introduce 7 heros as well as a petition to allow Zaishen heros of all types to allow for 7 heros of even an individual class...

Please post your opinions and sign / notsign here

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10202642

That probably won't do anyting. AN says 'no' so it's 'no' then