A discussion on 7 heroes

Not everyone will group purely 'because it is fun'. A lot of players would be willing to play the game offline. Those people do not benefit the playerbase in any way, and in an online game, that is important.

You can make an argument for 'players will like it, so add it', but it is to the game's benefit to try to keep as many players playing together as possible. You can probably increase sales by catering as widely as possible, but at which point do you draw the line?

Also, enough of the 'lol humans are better so heroes aren't op' nonsense. The point is that by giving stronger non-player options, you increase the size of the playerbase that has no reason to group ever because a hero group allows them to do anything. When both the supply of grouping players and demand for them goes down, it's obvious that for a lot of people, the team play aspect is going to vanish.

There will always be some that do not function this way, but your enjoyment is no consolation to the person that buys the game, sees nobody to group with, turns to wiki and heroes, then leaves, bored.

Though really, this is a change that doesn't matter. It's the kind of thing ANet reads about and thinks 'meh, whatever'. It'll likely get thrown to the playerbase like a bone to a dog to make sure they stay around.

I don't mind forum discussion, and it's my job to encourage it, but really. This thread is like watching, in the current economic panic, people arguing about the aesthetics of the Dollar. In the scope of Guild Wars design, this is not serious business. It's a band-aid change, but then again, at this stage, who cares and why not?

you make a good point there Avarre, but I'm not sure the statement that 7 heroes will cause more people to choose for heroes instead of PUGs is true.

As I see it, people who do not want to play with others, already make use of H/H.
Of these people, those who have trouble with certain missions or w/e using H/H, will then turn to people they know ingame, such as guildmates or alliancefriends.
And if they have no guild or friends ingame, and still don't want to play with PUGs, they'll simply quit, or keep trying with different hero/henchmen setups untill they do succeed.

So 7 heroes would perhaps make things easier for them, but this isn't the kind of people that is going to help the multiplayer base anyway.
The ones who DO like to play with others, will seek out others to play with, be it via forums, guilds, alliances or party-searches. Give them 7 heroes, and they won't care, as they prefer real people anyway. Otherwise, why buy an MMORPG in the first place?

and if the box states you can use 7 heroes in the future, it won't matter, as the ones buying the game in order to play solo with 7 heroes, wouldn't have helped the Multiplayer base anyway. These people would simply not have bought the game.

So basically, as you say, it won't really matter much to the game. 3 heroes or 7 heroes, it will not change the amount of people looking for other people to PUG with, it will most likely only make things more enjoyable for those who wish to play solo. 7 heroes will not suddenly change peoples minds from playing with other people to playing with 7 heroes all of a sudden. If you enjoyed playing with people before, you still will look for real people (in guilds or w/e), and if you don't, then you were probably using H/H already.

It'll have a marginal effect. I can definitely believe there are some PuG players who are teetering on the edge, and the idea that they can just control a full party would send them that way.

While personally I find heroes altogether a generally bad idea, adding the change will make people happy - but these players are mostly already playing H/H, so for them, it's a practically cosmetic change.

I'd rather design changes be made than ones like this.

Precisely. but then again, ANet knew that this was going to happen from a start. With a game that's as limited as Guild Wars, with an ever increasing gameworld, with very strict class archtypes, with unforgiving missions (lose your NPC = FAIL the mission) and with those rather huge party requirements (for reference, the early raids in WoW are 10 man!), the multiplayer aspect was tumbling down as soon as its feet hit the ground.

You just can't have a large emphasis on multiplayer in a game like Guild Wars. That's why ANet is completely reverting it in GW2. It's somewhat of a shame that it's going to be persistant and without AI parties, but the fact that we won't need them is a huuuuuuge step forward.

Well, for the last point here, the same is true in reverse: the player who buys the game, sees that he basically has to group, joins a PUG and leaves frustrated.

But, aside from that, it does seem to become a question, then, of: How do you encourage people to group? Not force, but encourage - make it worth their time and make it an enjoyable experience?

I'd be interested in any real statistics on: People who Group (PUG or Guild) vs. people who solo (H&H). Across all the GW accounts, are the H&H'ers the minority, or the majority, of the playerbase?

Except we've already established H/H work.

Step one is making the game good. If the game is good, more people play it. Repetitive title crap does not lend itself to playing with people, and the actual game is too dry at this point. There's a serious lack of replayability that isn't grind related.

In a persistent world MMO's actually make sense in an instants MMO they don't, I discovered that little nugget playing another game, countless times I've been trying to finish an objective in the game and out of nowhere (probably on the same quest line) people come in to help them self and you, and most of the time they hang around to make sure you got it completed too, it's just a better world for an MMO game, instants is fine for small parts of it but for the entire game? no because it makes the game appear empty even if it's not, because people are spread all over the place.

We're getting a bit off-topic, here, but I am interested - I totally agree that grind does not promote group play. So, what would add to the game?

I really think ANet expected that PvP would be the dominant attraction of GW, and that's why they put very little effort into the henchmen AI. People would want to play with each other. The reality, however, became the reverse. People preferred the crappy AI to playing with real people. (Oh, not everyone - don't even start that! But, enough that ANet tried improving the AI, and even gave us Heroes so we had customizable henchmen. It was a sales gimmick, but I think they were responding to a desire in the community for more independence - i.e., solo-play.)

So, what would make playing with others, grouping up, a better option than having the ability to do all heroes?

Unfortunately we know the answer to that: the human group must be so much superior to the AI group that it outweighs the noob-calling, drop-outs, penis-drawings, general cluelessness, and loss of leadership.
The PvE skills were supposed to give humans that edge, but with the exception of original Ursan they, overpowered though they are, are not sufficient to outweigh the downsides of pugs.

If I wanted a single-player game I would buy something else.
Playing GW solo with H/H is soo boring it makes me Alt+F4 after 10 minutes.

And there is practically no way to play with others - not only it's close to impossible to find someone wanting to do the same thing, for example vanqiush a zone in Tyria, almost all people who left and want to play with others are just terrible at the game, so bad the only reason they want to pug is that they fail playing alone.

3 heroes is already too many.
The effect of their addition was devastating to the multiplayer aspect of pve.

Well, the human (real player) side of the equation is completely out of ANet's hands. They can't be responsible for penises, griefing, and ineptitude. But, can they make it more profitable, both in terms of gold, xp, and drops, to party with a full human team vs. 1+6/7? Can they make the reward greater for having all real players?

GW is stated as a Group game AND a solo game, so if i want to buy a solo game i can buy GW.

If they did'nt had heroes, ppl would play with henchmen, so the effect on pugs would be the same. There's nothing that prevents ppl to pug or to play with guilds.

There is just too much content in GW to have full district with pugs in all outpost. This is why you have Henchmen, then they added Heroes to be able to customize our play style and the diminution of players. Now the game is dying, 90% of the outpost are empty, ppl play with guilds, grind title aka raptor farm (which is boring)

Next step to make non-puggers happy = 7 heroes.

Edit : playing with H/H make the game boring for YOU, we (the others) don't want to press Alt-F4, We press Alt-F4 when in a pug and we see someone with mending and life siphon yieling Pew pew pew. S***, B****. etc...

I haven't pugged much, but my impression from the times I have was that human teams already get much better drops than AI teams.

Now, I may be wrong about that, but I wouldn't really mind if droprates were noticeably higher in all-human teams than in teams with AI's in them.

They could put in double drop, or even crystaline sword drop from every foes as long as your in human team, i'd still play with heroes, much more fun !!

But see, the world and therefore the game revolves around him. He doesn't care that you don't want to play with him. He wants the game to force you to play with him. People like that will never be happy until they can control you to serve their needs, and fighting 7 heroes is exactly how they achieve it.

It's only a matter of time before Anet gives up the ghost, recognizes they left their game to rot and rot it has, and how much 7 heroes are both wanted and needed.

We have already said it is both. I am saying that the game was mostly designed as a multiplayer game when it came out even though the option to play solo was there. Anybody who can't see this is out of their mind. But this is off topic as the game today has changed. That is why I think bringing an old box into this thread as some kind of evidence for 7 heroes is a waste of time.

So if I enjoy doing 1,000,000 damage to monsters should it be added to the game? Not everything you enjoy should be added to the game. It doesn't matter if people are teaming up because thats how they have fun if direct negative effects come along with the addition. Anet has to ask themselves if that would be good for their product to turn it into a completely single player game. At least as it stands now you have to have at least 2 humans for max heroes and you have to play with henchmen if you want to solo. Those give some players SOME reason to party with humans.

The game is already easy as hell without 7 heroes.

I don't see why not. The game was built from the ground up for it. The problem happened when Anet strayed from their vision and then the game because a cookie cutter single player game instead of an epic massive multiplayer game. The day heroes came out was the day Guild Wars ceased being an MMORPG (or a CORPG) to me. It became a single player game just like any basic console game.

Those people aren't selfish. They are simply responding to something they think would be bad for the game as a whole. For example, a whole LOT of people want the old soul reaping or Ursan back in the game. Does that mean it should be added? A lot of people feel the same way about 7 heroes.

Do not compare adding 7 heroes and giving ppl a skill that deals 1,000,000 damage. come on !!

The problem is that ppl already don't team up with others. I'm pretty sure A-nets already see that.

[/QUOTE]I don't see why not. The game was built from the ground up for it. The problem happened when Anet strayed from their vision and then the game because a cookie cutter single player game instead of an epic massive multiplayer game. The day heroes came out was the day Guild Wars ceased being an MMORPG (or a CORPG) to me. It became a single player game just like any basic console game.[/QUOTE]

The day they added heroes was the next step after henchment, maybe anet just could,nt add heroes at the beginning, thus giving us only henchmen. Maybe if they could add heroes, tehy would have done it.

You see, A-net give us a game that can 1. play with others and 2. play alone.

Yes, at the begining, pugging was huge, cause they were alot of ppl and less outpost. It's not heroes that killed pugs, it's puggers quitting the game, ppl change from pve to pvp. New ppl that buy the game, usually goes for hench/heroes.

Nope it was designed as both from the start no favoritism either way it was both from Prophecies with exception of 2 key areas if you don't count PvP, the reason for this is they could not project either way of which part of there game was going to be the hook so they had to cater to a broad spectrum of people from solo too multi-player, Factions was designed the same way for the exception of 2 key areas and then again with Nightfall & EOTN, if they had favored at any point either side then you would have seen a reduction in henchmen at out posts or no heroes at all or have you not noticed that as the chapters progress the group of henchmen in outposts increased a little.

You need to see the scales balanced or this debate might well end up continuing to your death bed, because both sides of the argument have equal amounts of ammo when that happens the cancel each other out as both being right, and the parties should just agree that it's both.

The only way in which they "strayed" from their vision - more like "pushed from" - was by giving everyone what they wanted: more game. If they simply kept PvE in the same campaign and in the same areas, we'd see the game dwindle quickly. If you provided more areas and other content you provide more game, but separate more people.

For the rest, I'd quote Upier's list. Not because it's a good list of faults but a good example of why Guild Wars' multiplayer was going to have trouble right there from the start.

And people have been playing Guild Wars as a "single-player game" long before heroes came out

7 heros would be leetsauce... but seeing as thats not happening maybe update skills sets on henchies?

There would still be plenty of incentive to group with players Avarre, much like now, when lots of players already playing H/H, alot of my guildies still only want to play with guildie, they alway ask before taking h/h as an option, (not that H/H should be an option, I think of it as a choice) or that they wait for more guildies to log on, they always go with guildies. And you know why? PVE SKILLS. you cannot use it on hero's bar. Thats the thing that is keeping pug alive, We even have forum for members to post a list of request to area that they wanted help with.

And believe me when I say there are lots of people like this: playing Guild Wars Still

Though its a valid point, a weak one non the less.

No, you cannot "claim the game was originally meant to be a multiplayer game with the option to play solo and have a legit point." Why, becasue playing solo or playing with henchmen or playing with other players are 3 choices offered by this game, none of it should preceed any of the other 2 choices.

I'm sorry, but the last 3-4 people who responded to me are completely wrong. This game originally was created to be a multiplayer game with the option to play single player. I can pull up multiple quotes from devs and sources if you don't believe me. The game was built to be a competitive game (ie multiplayer PvP) when it first came out. There is no debate about that...its factual.

That is completely off topic to the thread though because the game is different now and it has nothing to do with whether or not 7 heroes should be in the game. But I thought I would just inform you of the facts.

and we are talking about PvE

Okay then wise ass explain the reason for enough henchmen in EVERY outpost to complete an entire team to complete quests/missions in that area, further more explain why it is even possible to complete the entire game without interacting with a single human at all, if was designed to be multiplayer from the start you could do none of that by yourself at all period, now go back to your little fantasy land and suck eggs.

ED: And by the way no one I've read here wants 7h for bloody PvP, get your PvP ass out the thread if you don't play PvE, because I hate PvP types that think there some kind of god of the game actually I hate PvP.

thread could be closed.... its like lott scaling thread was months before.
People hates LS ... ANET ignores.
People loves 7H ... ANET ignores.
All these changes would extend the game's lifetime, which means more player more server resources needed.
We payed the price for the game, we got 3000 hours playtime, we can go....
Its not business to keep player in the game.

Actually he's kindof right. The game was and is primarily seen as a multiplayer game, not a single player game. The henches were added to let casual players play when friends/guildies were not around, and of course to give a selection if the team was one or a few players short. The henches were intentionally given functional but weak skillsets in order to not be as good as human players, thereby encouraging pugging.

But there is no escaping the fact that the game WAS intentionally made possible to solo with henches, even though it was much harder than if playing with humans.

The game was primarily multiplayer yes, but ALSO by design soloable with henches.

(Another thing: I can't believe that you guys are still debating box blurbs! The text on the boxes are not written by Anet designers, but by some random marketing droid, quite possibly not even employed by Anet. Box blurbs are, to put it another way, not canon.)

Well, PvP players note that it's easier to burn through the PvE against monsters with intentionally gimped builds than it is to defeat human teams on a level playingfield, and that's of course true.
It is also irrelevant.

Pre-Searing says hello! You know, where people are encourage to group together from the very start? At least then you would have a valid excuse to not take a res sig into RA i suppose. ("Res me please!" ... "Well actually I have no res sig because i hate that grouping quest in Pre. It's awfully mean of them to force you to team up with that noob lv 2 monk with bane sig on his bar don't you think?")

I mean you can't really believe that it was designed as a solo game primarily can you? Why would they even bother making it online in the first place then? Come on it's even got 'Guild' (a group of like minded people) in the title of the game!

Where's that team spirit gone? I think someone needs to use /goteam emotes a bit more often

Now that was a really bad argument.
The res-sig quest exists to learn new players how to group, and no one denies that it is possible by design to group in GW. That's bad for your argument.
Worse is that that's one of only two quests in pre which require grouping, the dozens of other quests do not, and are easily soloable.
Worst is that originally there was a forced PvP match when you exited pre-searing, where you were paired up with other players to fight a human team - but that was removed, by your logic suggesting that ANet don't want PvP in the game.

But beyond all that you're missing the point: he's not saying that GW is ONLY a single-player game, he's saying that it ALSO is a single-player game. That it, intentionally, by anet design, can be played both as multiplayer and single player.

Sorry you can't handle the truth dude. I'm really sorry. Now then lets get this thread back on track maybe.

Okay fine since you like DJryder refuse to meet the argument at least half way, your ignored .. bye bye have a nice life.

The argument didn't even have to be met. There was no argument. Everything I said was truth and the Anet founders said so. You are simply spewing in the face of facts to fill some kind of void you have. But I am ignored so oh well. Just another illogical person in favor of 7 heroes in this thread.

Yep this is very true lots of people played the entire Prophecies with just henchies all the way through. I even killed Glint as a solo player and henchies and that proved to me right there the entire game could easily be played solo as long as you understood the skills and how to use the skilled henchies in your favor. I think many people expected henchies to be over the top players, but, they are just average as that is what they should be. It was heroes that took the game over the top and if anything I wish they would remove the heroes and make everyone that wants to solo just use henchies like before.

They gotta remove all the idiots in game first though.

The bolded part is the winning part.

Despite one's feelings towards heroes - they simply HAD to be introduced since the game evolved past the original vision. And it's not just the players that are to blame for this change in the way the game is player (aka the selfish little bastards that would rather play by themselves then with other people) - it's A.net's fault just as much. I mean who is going to wait for a group for HFFF when you need to do the run 10k+ times?
Because of the size of the game AND because of how PvE evolved - multiplayer in PvE rarely works anymore.
So what we are left with is a big number of players that not only consist of players that want to be left alone - but also a huge number of players that are FORCED to be alone. While some of the guilt does fall on the fact that it's really easy to bring a bunch of NPCs and leave the outpost pretty much as soon as one enters it (which would also be a good reason against all-hero parties!) - the bigger part of the problem is that some parts of the game are pretty much empty. The way HoM works promotes the idea of having just ONE character. And when you have just one character and pretty much all that is left to do it grind - you don't waste time by looking for the right party - you just want to get it over and done with as soon as possible so that you can do it again. And again. And again ....
And it's because of this that single player options must be present - and not only that - it would be wise to make them as good as possible.

So for multiplayer to become appealing again - the game would need to be completely reworked. While this is something I am much in favor of - I mean I still fondly remember the times when me and 3 more folks fought our way from Piken to Grendich chatting all the way while killing baddies (we didn't even run monks because self heals were good enough - which made partying so much easier!) - there is a reason why we are getting GW2.
It just won't happen. So the whole original vision of how GW is supposed to be played can be thrown out the window and try to make it as good for the players that are currently playing.
Full hero parties would be the next step.

Nope they don't gotta remove all the idiots because those idiots payed their money to play the game the way THEY want to as well as anyone else. There are no rules or bylaws that says everyone must comply to a certain build or standard because you say so.

It's not complying to a certain build, it's called not being a damned horrible player.

These are two different things.

Bad players should not dictate how the game develops. That's just a slap in the face to the good players, and is a big factor for most of them leaving.

That's just wanting your own selfish attitude way though Avarre, you should be old enough to realize there's a lot more bad players than good in everything. So, really the bad players do get to dictate a lot of how the game plays or they just won't buy it or continue to play it and then you'll end up like Shadowbane with no players at all. This isn't a sport or atheletic type game. It's a game first and foremost to be enjoyed by the majority moreso than the elite. Just gotta buck up and smell the roses because the bad is never going to catchup with the minority good in any game. Also once again there is no "certain build" by the sold game standards or the EULA read the EULA nothing states a gamer has to play by any "certain build". That's just elitists that think they know it all and that's why you get bad players, because if they don't meet YOUR standards that's what YOU classify them, but, that doesn't mean it's the truth by a long shot, just a handful of minority opinions.

You're incredibly naive if you think a game that caters to the bad players is good design. All games have challenge curves that provide a more difficult end goal and reward - the better you are, the more reward you can get, and hence the better players are rewarded and the weaker players have something to strive for.

Games that just give you everything end up in generic repetitive grind, or die.

You don't see any other games dumbed down because players find it hard - 'sports and athletic' type games are enjoyed by the majority, and the majority is not skilled. The general rules are constant for everyone, and are defined by the top level. You might have handicaps in place for novices, but that's what the opening of the game, with lower level enemies and poor skillbars is for.

And you're incredibly naive if you think the game caters to a handful of elitists and hardcore hahaha, you really need to get a job as mmorpg design and listen in on some of the developement ideas and discussions. hahaha Develope for the Hardcore and Elite hahaha that is a funny one. The better additions to any mmorpg are few and small. Just count your elite areas compared to the common areas of ANY mmorpg. Sorry, but, developers must make the game more for casual and bad players moreso than good ones. They make elite harder areas to give goals for the bad not just because elite players and hard core players play the games. This I got directly from a publisher and developers own mouths. Games are made for the common masses not elitists or hard core players. It's for financial reasons.

How do elite areas and catering to certain players have anything to do with what I'm talking about?

Try again.

Oh, I understand it fine. It's just irrelevant.

You can design a game for everyone without dumbing it down. They're seperate design concepts entirely.