A discussion on 7 heroes

put this in the next update and it will make ppl happy for a few more months
(those that want 7 heroes that is)
oh and the search is back up, yay!

A Majority of the playerbase? Based on a guru poll? Are you tranked? The Guru population represents the GW blayer base about as well as the Hare Krishnas represent the American population.

Because being able to take both a BHA/interrupt ranger AND a condition spreading ranger is COMPLETELY imbalanced! </sarcasm>

No I'm confident enough that this poll is representative. If you think that it is not, you clearly don't talk with a lot of players ingame then.

Over 80% want 7 heroes in this poll and guru has a lot of nay sayers in general.

I'm sure if they did an ingame poll asking every player in the login screen to have the option to play with 7 heroes, they would end up with stats around 90% or more.

Even less people play this game now since when this topic was started (almost 2 years ago). I bet most people would love to have 7 hero parties, because every outpost beside the one ZMission takes place in is completely devoid of life, aside from those few who don't have access to heroes futilely seeking help with the mission, generally from those who do have heroes.

Judging by their past updates, we will have to buy it in order to remove our hero cap. Either way, I really hope they do this since it would just give people more gameplay options.
If anybody doesn't like it, then go play with your friends. There's no reason to impose your beliefs, of how a game should be played, on other players.

Maybe they'll lower the hero cap to 4, so each player can add one extra hero (just so we experiment with something outside of sabway) and then make the rest buy-able.
They might also remove the hero cap except for the last party member, which will have to be a human or henchman; this would also encourage people to get just one PuG with them, since henchmen are pretty bad.

No, I suppose I don't. The ones I do talk to, however, would agree with you (and me) that 7 heroes would be awesome.

HOWEVER...

Those two statements are contradictory. If the login screen poll came up with significantly different results (10% is significant given the size of the base), then that makes my point that a Guru poll ISN'T representative.

Not that I think it's a bad idea. With the playerbase splitting between "gimmicks" (which draw oh so much QQ on Guru) or insisting on running "balanced" (which means good luck grouping if you're not one of the currently-sexy classes in demand), it might be time for them to re-examine the 7-heroes decision (even though it will seriously piss DreamWind off).

Contrary to popular belief, they never said "No, it's never going to happen." They said that they're not even going to consider it when the playerbase is [that] strong, so it would be a few years before they even looked at it again. It's been a few years, and the player base leaves much to be desired...

It is representative as both results would represent an overwhelming majority and that's what matters in my argumentation. But I know what you mean, that's with every poll. However trends can be spot.

Anyway, I don't wanne end up in a quote wars, I want other people to get into the debate.

That is, if you would ask it the PvE players
I won't say to much here, cause there are probably already a few posts of me down the line.

But o men, yep I would really like 7 hero's..And no that wont stop me playing with guildies and alliance friends..its just a extra to do when you already made the choice to do something on your own.

Amen. Hell, I'd love just ONE more slot, just for the sake of not having to choose between bringing a monk or an interrupt mesmer/ranger and having to rely on *shudder*Mhenlo for healing...

it would be interesting to bring
Racway + discordway + 1 Me/N hex/condition spammer

7 heroes?! Yes, Yes!! YaY, YaY!!! What Anet, even if we ALL want it, you still say no?! Boo!!!!

So much has gotten really messed up with GW lately, and so many good requests denied. I'm really getting the feeling this company doesn't care about GW1 anymore. I'm gonna really have to consider what my response will be when (if?) GW2 comes out.

nah.

3xN
2xP
2xRt

Go-go, wayway team.

Or maybe I want to make up my own heroes the way I want with a bit more balance. Like take a heal monk and a prot monk, a hammer warrior, a paragon, a mesmer, an ele, a ranger, and either a ritualitst or a derv. Or a different mix.

My point being that with 7 heroes I could set up their skill bars with a ton more variety that I do now. As it is now, when I vanquish I take the cookie cutter Sabway heroes and just fill in the rest with Henchmen. I am relying more on my heroes to do the job with the Henchmen only acting as filler. With 7 heroes I could open up skill bars and take stuff that is hardly used just to try it out and have less of a chance of failure.

Sure, people will find a 7 man build that will just bulldoze everything and be unstoppable. I think that is just showing peoples ingenuity and understanding of skills and synergy between them. BUT, not everyone is going to run to PvX and use the new flavor builds.

I would maybe wait until Guild Wars 2 comes closer to release though. When it comes out and some of the player base begins to migrate away, The addition of using 7 heroes would help fill the gap for those who stay behind.

/just my 2 cents

Despite the arguements about how the game should be played, anyone who thinks this isn't a MULTIPLAYER game is smoking crack. Henchmen were added because the Devs knew that there would be times when you would not be able to find a human to fit what you needed for the team. Heroes were added because many people complained about how bad henchmen were but still wanted access to NPC players to fill in a team.

Allowing for 7 heroes would make playing with other people completely unnecesary. Yes, some still would, but most wouldn't. Even elite areas would be 'easily' completed using 7 heroes. AI reaction time is better than human, so outside of certain things (pre-protecting, etc.) heroes do most jobs better than humans.

If I was able to use 7 heroes, I would. However, I would also find the game extremely boring, extremely fast, and stop playing soon after. I know that isn't the case for everyone, but I also know I'm not in a significant minority on that.

I would love to see 7 heroes. Yes, I agree that it will make more people play solo. BUT in general (except for players with no heroes, I guess) the ones who would still want to team up will be the ones that do it because they WANT to, not because they NEED to. Think of it as an efficient weed-out process. And then regarding those players with no heroes... take them along with 6 of your own heroes and give them a free ride so they can move on to other stuff .

I know it won't always work out magically that way, but it will sure as heck be good enough to justify the glory of experimenting with 7-hero team builds. Just imagine all the skills besides N, Rt, and Mo gimmicks we'll be revisiting and having fun with. Or maybe we'll even just amplify all those N/Rt/Mo gimmicks and blast through things even more quickly than before. Sometimes I'm just in a mood like that, so sue me .

Oh, and don't worry about making control panels for the extra 4 heroes. That would be overwhelming anyway. Fine with me if they just function like henchmen once added to the party, so that only minimal changes to the GUI would be required.

If people really enjoyed pugging and playing with others I don't think a hero limit would really matter, but I don't really think that's the case for Guild Wars. When you're seeking out other players, there's a whole lot of potential for a whole lot of stress. This needs to be ANet's focus with GW2.

Exactly why I wouldn't like 7 heros to be implemented. People keep saying "full teams are always better than heros" but nobody would be able to make them. You can't even make a full non hero team now.

I played another game that was given an extreme easy button during the beta phase and max level was a joke... it used to really be something, but people just were getting them like nothing and the game was too short as a result. There needs to be some challenge, otherwise why play? If you want to play straight farming and start your fake gold collection, go to WoW.

This isn't a multiplayer game anymore. Anyone who still believes that this game can and should be played from start to finish with pug's needs to take the "good old days" glasses off and take an impartial look around.

I exclusively play hero/hench, or all hero with a rl friend that I know I can trust. I am sick of the griefers you always meet when trying to pug. On the flip side, I'm also sick of being denied a slot in a group because I choose to play a warrior and am not perma, cryer, sabway...whatever the current PvX cookie-cutter flavor of the week is.

Creativity and individuality are no longer considered assets, unless of course, you're the only individual responsible for how creative each skillset is. I'll keep playing online with my rl friend, we have fun together. When he's not available it's h/h.

(If anet wants to keep refusing, maybe I'll ask my friend to log on quick, then end gw process when in dungeon/mission when he doesn't have the time to play, 6 heroes is better than 3)

Heroes are actually inferior, in game performance, to human players because:

1) They can't tell line-of-sight. So they keep shooting into the wall if the target is behind. This is why most effective hero builds are casters, but many dont know that this is due to their AI limitations.

2) They cant get out of AoE properly. The worst behavior are from the melee heroes who go in and out of AoE until they die unless you flag them, which demands you to manage them, while managing your own character. This is a pain, which you would not need to feel if you are with a human team in the first place.

3) They can't run most of the builds right. Otherwise we would see lots of SF Zenmai/Anton heroes wouldn't we? Check pvxwiki, how many builds are for humans and how many are for heroes. If many of those builds are also effective for heroes, they would have marked it as such. Also some builds require you to micro manage their skills while playing your own character, which is another pain that you would not need to feel if you are with a human team in the first place.

4) They can't weapon switch. Not a big deal for most builds but an issue with some where you need to weapon switch when encountering e-denial or when you need energy.

5) They can't carry quest items. On many missions, this is a pain.

6) They can't split well.

7) They can't use any PvE skills. This makes a HUGE difference in performance since these skills are the most overpowered.

8) They can't bring cons, which humans do at times, to help out their team.

9) They dont read wiki and are totally reliant on you to know where to go. I can go on but I will stop here for now.

Granted their reflexes are generally better, even though they are not perfect because they still do miss with their mesmer interrupts also. But with all these disadvantages outweighing that single advantage, I would say they have a much lower in-game performance potential than a good human player.

Why do people use H/H then? Because they are CONVENIENT as they dont require you to wait in town to form a team. In difficult areas, that convenience is offset by the difficulty of those areas, so most people still had to party up.

What about 7 heroes? I dont care, but they are still better than henchies so better than H/H. They will never surpass a good human team though.

Party up, as in 2 people? That isn't a party.

I started Guild Wars just this year and pugged everything. It is way more fun. No glasses here.

Like I said, it is the balance between convenience and power, the players have to decide. It is faster to find just 1 more person than to find 7 other persons to form a team. But a full human team is still potentially stronger. If anything else, 24 PvE skills per team already makes a huge difference, otherwise SC teams wouldn't have been so much more effective compared to H/H teams.

But nobody will make them since heros are still better. When was the last time you saw a full team? It's like justifying extremely conditional skills... yeah if that condition happens they work good, but 99% of the time the conditions aren't met so the skill will never be used.

A full team of heroes = no multiplayer game. The who purpose of the game is to adventure with allies and Guilds/Alliances. You wouldn't need the help of anyone with all your heroes kitted out - 7 alongside you.

Yes, some would say that's better than having pugs with rubbish builds, but it destroys the whole focus of multi player. What would you do then? The only interaction in game with other players would be pvp and trading. Adventuring through the pve landscapes would be single player for a lot of people.

It's sad really that people leave the real world to play games such as these, shutting themselves off from the outside world and human contact, only to want to avoid human contact in a virtual world as well.

I thoroughly enjoy helping people out and adventuring. Only yesterday I answered a question about where to go from Dragons Throat by a Dervish who had come from Nightfall. Nothing had appaeardd in the mission log. So I went to Nika in Bukdek Byway with him, then asked if it would be ok for me to help him progress a bit further because I was bored. I then travelled with him to Nahpui Quarter. With a full hero party, this seemingly normal and friendly interaction would be far less. People wouldn't bother teaming up when you have computer controlled allies by your side.

I'm a graphic designer by trade and therefore love computers helping me out. Their mechanical workings are a treat, helping me create shapes and geometric forms that otherwise would take at least twice as long by hand. Human mistakes and trial and error make life what it is. If you made a whole team of computer npcs alongside of you, with superhuman interupts etc, for me anyway, it would ruin the part of the human brain that moves around the battlefield in game, analysing the situation, finding the best place to attack; casting at enemies from behind a rock not allowing rangers to strike you.

Anyway I'm diverging. If you want a team of computer controlled players alongside you, opt for something like Final Fantasy (not the online version). Teaming up in towns and outposts, organising builds, chatting to players in game, helping out players by bringing your heroes to assist them is part of a good thriving PVE world.

SC teams are still popular for HM elite areas. My guild, and others, runs SC every night for instance. They sometimes join PUGs for SC too, although that has a lower success rate.

Clearing UW in under 15mins is something a H/H team can't even get close to, in terms of game performance. With such performance, who needs 7 heroes?

SC teams are full human teams, for those who do not know.

Precisely why we need it. The problem has already arrived. People would rather play with three heroes and four only-marginally-smarter-than-oatmeal henchmen than spend 45 minutes trying to get up a PUG group for Riverside Province. They're ALREADY convinced they shouldn't play with other people, so extending the hero allowance won't change that.

Then you have the anti-hero players, those who have been around since beta who beleive the game should be PUGed from Pre-Searing to A Time For Heroes. 7 Heroes won't change their mind on that any more than 4 did and they will still spend the majority of their time spamming LFG.

Middle grounders:
Play with others when they're available, otherwise H/H. Some of them might change to all heroes, but those would be the ones who only play with marginally-smarter-than-marginally-smarter-than-oatmeal henchmen other players because henchmen suck that bad. If they don't like playing with others, forcing them to do so doesn't improve their enjoyment of the game.

And then the people who actively ENJOY playing with others (I'm think I'm one of these, at least for the first 5 minutes of any PUG. After that, it's a crapshoot, depending on how many map-penises show up) but also like doing their own thing which may not be the most popular pastime. It's not often you can find someone else going to cap Virulence at the exact time you're doing it, so you end up taking henchies as 4 extra braindead minions that you can't heal with BotM. This is also true for those missions that everyone loves to hate (Dzagonur Bastion, thou art the spawn of the abyss...). If you're lucky, you find another desperate wretch looking to do it in HM at the same time you are. If so, these players boot out General Morgahn and let the other guy in.


Honestly, any argument against 7 heroes that doesn't center around technical limitations falls squarely in the realm of trying to dictate how others play the game.

7 heros ftw, no more pugs woot i'm in.
I preffer to solo with henchies, alone or heros.
I find humans way too slow, unprepared or too gungho.
taadadadadadadaaaa
taadadadadadadaaaa
taadadadadadadaaaadaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aa

The multiplayer part of this game can be found in PvP and they always welcome new players. Besides that, people would still have the option to coop with friends in PvE, nothing will change on that part.

I already play with 6 heroes alongside if I want, but I think everybody should have the option to play with more than 3 heroes in a simple practical way, without using 2 accounts or bothering friends to use theirs.

Yes, if you run [current meta build found on PvX].

Like the meta builds for pve? UWSC to give one example.

Here's my take on this:

Would I like to use 7 heroes? Sometimes.

Yes, I do agree that in some cases, the person would be too powerful with their heroes, however, I would like to pose a challenge to everyone who says no, we shouldn't because the game's designed for a group of human players:

Find an all human group (Yes, a PUG without heroes or henchies) to achieve the explorer title who will not sit there and whine that "It's taking too long" or "Can't we just go for something like Skill Hunter where we can just buy tomes?" and who is available at all times of the day and night. Are you going to find this PUG? Most likely not. Most people are too lazy to go for the titles the old fashioned way (in other words, getting off their rear ends and actually doing it, not paying someone to do it for them).

I understand A-Net's reasoning for limiting the number of heroes, however, it was their fault for introducing tomes and designing a game for the lazy player. My other argument, if we can only use 3, when why do we have so many heroes? It's not like it's going to take 10 minutes to change the hero's build. If they only wanted us to use 3, then they shouldn't have given us so many heroes.

No.
Its an MMO,or CORPG if you like it more.
Cooperation,players.
Not heroes.

You already can do everything with 3 heroes and henches.

Uh did you ever think that the reason they want to leave the real world and avoid people in a virtual world is because they are tired of seeing the people (and their opinions)? You could say "Why not play a singer player game?" Well I would answer that, this game has what they are looking for, there isn't a single player game that is Guild Wars.


Teaming up with players is not something I really want to do. I rather play by myself with heroes, and talk to people in towns. Or through whisper while I'm doing that. I don't really like having to play with people though. I like having full control of what I'm doing, not partial. This game would survive with 7 heroes.

If you really intend to socialize, you dont have to PUG, just strike conversations with people in town. To PUG means taking risk with random people whom you have handed them the power to make your next 30mins of mission miserable. There is no need to risk the success of your mission by relying on the temperaments of little 12 year olds. There are many other safer ways to socialize on the Internet or out of the Internet.

In other words, if you want to play with humans, it is better to play with the people that you know and trust, then heroes, then random pugs. There is some wisdom in not trusting all strangers because not all strangers are worth your trust. If you dont value your mission, then go ahead and take that risk, otherwise it is a roll of a dice whether you would succeed or not, with strangers.

We are not anti-social, we are just not naive enough to trust all random strangers.

give us 7 heroes or take them ALL out including henchmen. /Done

7 heroes = OP as hell, they'd have to generate new areas that could actually challenge a 7-hero team

Yeah, although really isn't the game easy enough already?

I'm really not sure it would make much of a difference.

This thread has made me kinda depressed, actually.

Voted yes.
Not that i care so much if they add it in gw since ive "done it all" but i would REALLY like to have it in gw 2.

Who? Those of us who don't want to clear UW in under 15 min.

I haven't been in UW yet, though I've been playing GW about 18 months. When I do go, I would like to explore the place, learn my way around, do the quests, earn the statue, etc. It will likely take multiple trips and some spectacular failures to really learn UW, just as with any regular quest or mission.

That isn't compatible with speed-clearing the place. How many groups do you find in ToA intending to actually play UW rather than farm it? With seven heroes -- or even the availability of henchies -- I could go in and play it on my own terms. I can fail. I can stop to study the scenery. I can watch any cut scenes, read all the text in a dialog, and talk to any non-hostile NPCs I meet. (Just as I was able to do in Sorrow's Furnace.)

I am in a guild and alliance that are small, but helpful and friendly. It would be possible to gather up some guildies and allies with UW experience to show me the ropes, but it requires negotiating a schedule on our forums that suits everyone, etc., which is a bit of a pain. And, I find that the experienced members tend to have a "get 'er done" mentality that does not really leave me time to learn a place to the point where I can approach it on their level. I just sort of follow along, pitching in, until we get to the end. At which point I don't really know where we've been, or why, or anything else.

It would be very unfair of me to expect experienced players -- even allies -- to play an area as if they haven't done it dozens of times before. Heroes and henchies don't care. It's always new to them. They also don't care if it takes me three times as long to get through something because it's new to me. They have all the time in the world.

I probably would have been in UW, FoW, DoA, and ToPK long ago if there were additional heroes or henchies available to me for those places. I did do the Factions elite areas with an alliance group, which is what showed me the problems (from my persepective) with going into a new area with them. It was fun, but would have been more fun if I had already known the areas. (Which I still don't, having only been in them once, with no time to explore around.)

That's not going to happen.

No heroes or henchies in GW2, just a companion.

"Companions
The system of companions and allies is being reworked. Companions will have customization similar to Heroes. Players will be allowed to bring a single companion with them, who will not take up a party slot and are considered an extension of the character. When a player chooses not to bring a companion, their character will instead be buffed so that they will not be disadvantaged by not bringing a companion."

http://www.wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2

I think the poll shows us how people feel. Now we just have to Q.Q to anet like everyone else does until we get it.

Send 1 email every day to Anet for the next year. Maybe that will have some effect. If people are too lazy to do that, then they don't want 7 heroes that badly.

PS: I don't want 7 heroes that badly.


Good thing about GW 2 is you need no support to truely solo. Bad thing is you might not be able to get the best loot possible.