A discussion on 7 heroes

The ppl who wants 7 heroes are mainly playing with heroes/henchmen so you would still not have them to pug with you.

And you can always find a guild to play in PUG.

- ppl who plays heroes/henchment = now will use 7 heroes

- ppl who PUG will continue to play with fail pug.

No downside imo.

That has already been addressed, but it is a non-issue.

Either

A) There are many people like you who do not want to play with 7 heroes, and you can play with them, so your complaint is meaningless.

B) There are FEW people like you, which means you will indeed have a problem pugging. It also means you are in a vast minority, and should not be catered to at the expense of everyone else who does not WANT to be forced to pug with you. If this is the case, it is not the "solo-players" who should "find a new game", as someone suggested in this thread.

This ignores the fact that most people would rather take braindead, bad-barred henchies than pug with you already.

Your argument boils down to wanting others to be forced to play the game your way so you can do what you want.

You are interacting with another player for a start.... (forgetting borrowing other player's heroes for now). It's still actioning the player to play with one other player. Okay so you can't get a person or PUG, ANet should not really be catering for this problem at this time.

Why do I say this? Well, step back and think for one minute. It was picked up earlier in this thread. 7 heroes, therefore 7 AI "players". Plus minions and pets. Thats alot of AI work. Now before people cry "oh thats already happening with 2 people and 6 heroes". Yes it is but if seven heroes become widely available, many more people would be using this feature. And can the ANet servers cope with this extra load? Maybe, maybe not. So you may get what you ask for but hinder the gaming experience even more than is currently there due to the lag this extra processing might incur. Many people will still prefer something new to having 7 heroes (I would guess) - the amount of development time 7 heroes would need would still be better placed elsewhere.

And I would not put it past ANet for saying "You want 7 heroes? Sure - $5/10 per extra hero slot please"

Also this poll is still missing an "Don't Mind Either Way" option. I'm still not fussed either way if this comes or not, just trying to provide a reasonable "against" argument.

The system already exists, they tested with 7 heroes before nightfall got released, the quote is in here somewhere.

As for your server argument, the game is instanced and uses protocols that transfer very small data packages. I forgot the exact details about the server setup but read something about it somewhere in the past. I think the servers can handle 7 heroes without a doubt, especially since we know they tested with them. The reason Anet gave was that it would be imbalanced, not that it would overload the servers.

The one thing blocking our way is that that's the only reason we want more heroes - for fun, and I think that's why ANet is worried about implementing 7 of them: they don't want to narrow pugging even more, as little as 7 heroes would affect it, just because we want some funs.

This confuses me. What extra load? An AI routine running on a hero instead of a henchman? The extra minions (someone mentioned 48 pets+minions being a problem earlier in the thread)? I don't think that's a problem, when you've got things like double-discord already popping 35-40 minions at a time (probably more of an computer issue than a server one) or the game throwing 60 mobs skinned with transparency at you at once (RIP Budger), so it can obviously handle a buttload of mobs in a zone (part of the benefit of the instanced design). All of which have AI processes.

Unless the servers are made out legos, duct tape, and cheetos, I don't think that's going to be a problem. The bigger issue, as mentioned, is probably the UI. Flags for the other heroes[0], and a relatively minor change to the party list box (It already keeps you from adding heroes if the party is full)



[0]Though I'd take 7 heroes with just the normal flag for the last 4, provided the grouping layout is changed so that flagged heroes don't stand on each other like those idiots on top of the building in Independence Day just begging to have a fireball one-shot them. Hell, that would be nice for henchies too.

I think you hit the nail on top.

So how do we convince a stubborn company?

You don't.

Fortunately it's a small issue, since 7 heroes is far from a need.

Yaaaaawn... [clears throat]
Sorry did you say something innovative 'cos I missed it

If would be for 7 heroes for 2 reasons;
- The looks. Henchman just look ugly, and my heroes look good ^^ So my team would look much better, which is a thing I'd quite like.
- The synnergy of builds. With 7 heroes you can make alot more fun team setups and test alot of new builds. Normally without another team mate, this is impossible.


This could happen for some sort, if the more heroes you have in your team, the more handicap you get. Like for every hero in the team you get 3% unremovable dp, or for each hero above 4, you get 5%, or what so ever. Then teams could still be fair, but more fun.

No, you missed nothing at all, go back to sleep under your bridge...

No offense, but that idea is pure SILLY
Why implement unnecessary limitations?

Heroes do not have any advantages over normal players. They are only a convenience.ii

Methinks we will get more heroes in the next content update, but in order to get the raised cap, there would be some stupid requirement like paying for it.

heh maybe they should change the company name to Paynet.

pay for char slots
pay for storage tabs
pay for name change
pay for cosmetic avatar changes
pay for skill unlocks
pay for pet unlocks
pay for pvp sets

coming soon

pay to pick up drops
pay to have extra heroes
pay to zone to different areas

119 pages on Guru alone, 1023 vs 219.
Good job listening to the community ANet.

Heroes even have disadvantages (not being able to use pve skills etc) but people who are against are too... special to comprehend the whole concept.

If you have read this thread you would notice that there were some very good arguments against heroes which were still valid even last year. However with the current status of the game indeed there are less and less reasons against hero cap. I am quite confident that some people who voted no when this thread was created or even last year might be now in the yes group. I would be one of them.

So I can create immensely hilarious builds.

That's where we differ, you think in terms of needs, while I see it as an opportunity to satisfy the majority of the playerbase. In this case it would give more fun in PvE.

A need is more fit for a competitive environment like PvP, but in the end also in function of fun. For example, it's a need that an imbalance gets fixed as it's no fun to get beaten by imbalanced crap time and time again.

There are many things that are a need that didn't get fixed yet, that's no excuse however to not implement a popular feature.

For example, it wasn't really a need to have more storage, we got used to the way things were for many years. Nevertheless, it was a wanted feature and the bags themselves were welcomed by the playerbase.

Indeed, its not what we need. But it would be bring so much more fun to the
game,,, experiment with al kinds of builds etc. Glamouring weapons and armors. A zoo of pets etc.

O men It is what we need.. Couse it would be fun, and a game should be fun.

Sry I was so wrong of what we need

Then answer this/

Was extra panes a need or new names hairstyles ect...no

So you cant use the word need as for heros and say need was rqd to change hairstyles ect.

Its just that like myself yes i can go on dual and get 6 but all guys are aking for is the ability not need to use a full group of heros.
I was ina pug to-day (to see what the current situation was )and every guy wanted to do it there way ..i went with the flow and really a little disapointed on people trying to gell to-gether


No probs with guildies or friends but a Random pug it throws up a lot of personality probs

I HAVE read this thread and participated in it, thanks very much for the concern. No one ever managed to think of an argument against 7 heroes that wasn't instantly destroyed.

*Wrong way is wrong.

If you want a solo game wtf are you doing in gw?
They should be going in an exactly opposite direction - encourage MULTIPLAYER activities!
The number 1 most needed thing for PvE is a Global Party Search.

*Bad poll is bad.

People will ALWAYS vote for things that make their game easier or give them freebies.
The majority NEVER cares about the overall quality of the game when they can get an 'easy mode' button or some free items/cash.
Listening to the majority is often a BIG mistake! It's exactly thee same as with IMBA skills and builds. The vocal majority doesn't care about having the game well balanced as a whole, they just want to keep their farming as easy as pressing 1,2,3,4.

Here we go again, it's like I'm in 07 again!
I WAS playing it, not any more because there's nothing left to do, at least with 3 heroes. And no, gw isn't a social experiment, it doesn't and shouldn't force you to play with others and be happy about it.
Jolly good! Any ideas how to decrease stupidity of your typical gw player and increase his skill?
No?
Oh well.
Because 7 heroes are more powerful than 7 players with pve skills, consumables etc, right?
Except having 7 heroes isn't an "easy button"- it's a "convenience button".
Huge difference, I wouldn't be surprised if you wouldn't get it.
What's this, jumping out with balance now? How is 7 heroes imba but 7 people are perfectly balanced?

Learn to read. I've never said 7 heroes is easy mode or imbalanced.

But it doesn't change the fact it actually WOULD make the game easier for the solo players!
We all know most of the game in HM *CAN* be done with 3heroes+4hench and it's not hard to imagine how much easier would that be with 7heroes.
In effect players who occassionally pug because they fail with henchies would pug less, players who pug pretty often would also solo much more if they just could, so there would surely be less pugs overall.

and that is WRONG WAY.

We certainly didn't "need" hairstylists, name changes, or extra panes, that much is true.

But the thing about those is that they're all completely cosmetic.

Not so much for 4 more heroes. The changes of implementing them are a bit different.

If Anet implements 7 heroes. They are going to make us pay real money for each hero even though it'll be account wide. You know it.

Yes, you merely compared having 7 heroes to easy mode and imba. You're such a clever guy.

Gee, if having 7 heroes would make the game too easy for solo players then I can only imagine how easy the game is for group players, with 8 people.
And we all know that most of the game in HM *CAN* be done with you having only 6 skills.
I never pug, 7 heroes don't force people to abandon pugs, your "arguments" are old, inane and pathetic.
Read the thread from the very beginning and you'll find people spewing bs just like you. And getting shot down, too.

You forget about the group of people who are forced to PUG now but might be perfectly on their own with 7 heroes. Several of those people posted in this thread so they do exist. So there will be reduced pugging possibility and there is no doubt about it. The question is whether it has marginal impact or not. In my opinion it is now marginal. However some still think it is not.

Another one is that people still tend to group at the early stages of the game till they get heroes unlocked. It can be noticed also for players with proph only (yes they do exist have some in my guild). They get into groups just because some guys with 3 heroes are not able to do ring of fire missions. With 7 heroes in game those guys will be on their own more or less. There is less and less of those guys out there but still. Therefore you cant just say that there is no arguments against 7 heroes and nobody will remain unharmed. With 7 heroes some people would just quit since their tiny pugging possibilities will be reduced even more. Most of us can do perfectly well with 3 heroes so we are not forced to group therefore we do not see those other people unless we have them in the guild or alliance. The question is if those affected are small enough in numbers. Now I think they are but I cant be sure actually.

Forcing people = bad
Giving an option = good
Of course pugs will be reduced. They will be reduced because people who'll go with 7 heroes don't want to pug. Maybe if GW playerbase wasn't stupid as hell and running shitty builds then things would be different but vast majority of pugs are so terrible they make my balls itch.

You hit the nail on the head.
I'm sure even Anet knows that this is what a majority of players want. And I'm sure gw2 will be adjusted around solo play as well.

And this is the issue within this thread I'm afraid. On the one hand, we have people (like Yawgmoth) trying to put their point across that 7 heroes will effectively destroy what is left of PuGs and getting lambasted for not falling in line with the "I want 7 heroes, sod anyone else" mentality - which is what the quote basically stating.

7 heroes WILL make the game easier for the solo player, sorry but it will. And as I have said in posts here, 7 heroes will become a macro haven and the likes, basically allowing a player to just turn on the "auto pilot" button, kick back and watch the match as it were. Human nature being what it is will always say "give me the easiest option to get something done". This is precisely what the case will be in GW. Those who still want a challenge (if indeed it still exists in game) will refrain from using all the heroes available so thats fine. But for those enjoying the gaming experience with others, this feature would kill what is left - just as having 3 heroes started the slide originally. The more challenging areas (Urgoz, Deep, DOA etc) become non-existent unless you can find a guild still doing these areas. So while one set of people get what they want, another area suffers.

I STILL don't mind whether ANet decide to consider/implement this feature but I think, as with many people, this is not a solution to a dead game. But, considering the player base as it stands now, adding this is more than likely going to become inevitable. Good luck in getting this feature peeps sooner rather than later.

So, I have to be forced to pug because otherwise pugs will fall apart?
I don't give a rat's ass about pugs, never did, never will. Pugs consist mainly of shitty 10 year old players who run the most ridiculous builds ever created. Give me a single good reason as to why I should be forced to play with them.

And yeah, screw everyone else. People who want 7 heroes don't force others to use them. People who are against "because my precious pugs will be destroyed"? Yeah, they are forcing their playstyle.

Why the hell do I need to repeat myself?

"Gee, if having 7 heroes would make the game too easy for solo players then I can only imagine how easy the game is for group players, with 8 people."
Add PvE skills, consumables.
Because this isn't already doable with human players.
Come back when your argument doesn't revolve around "heroes are better than humans".

This isn't a whole lot different from playing the game with people. Skill in Guild Wars relies heavily on build configuration and very little on anything else. The point of note is that builds are very easy to copy (PvXwiki), allowing "skill" to be easy to simulated.

Wow BlackSephir, do you ever get out the right side of the bed?

All through my posts in this thread I have tried to be as neutral as possible, since I can see both the For and Against arguments on this subject.

Therefore my turn:

I agree that the average age and mentality has lessened over the years in Guild Wars, the maturity levels being a problem quite a lot.

But why is it these so called 10 year olds run shitty builds? GW has moved from players slowly understanding the mechanics of the game (i.e. the learning curve) so that they can indeed (in theory) come up with reasonable builds. What maybe a good build in one person's opinion may not be a good build in another's too. This argument has been going since Day 1 of GW!
The game (and general player base) no longer caters for teaching these fundamentals, it is now focussed on, well, titles mainly.

And ANet will always try and cater for the majority (if it can) without destroying certain aspects of the game that have ALWAYS been in place. And PUGS (like them or loathe them) are a part of the game. And for those who enjoy this aspect of the game, they lose out (as have been said many times in this thread admittedly). Co-Op basically exists no more. And this is why I think ANet will say no - they will not want this part of the game to die.

If you hate PUGs, that is fine. A lot do (I for one do too before you noose me on that one). Mhenlo and co are always happy to help in times of need after all, ANet maybe giving one more hero to a player would be highly beneficial but still keep the structure in place as it were. That I could see ANet doing in all fairness.

Consumables are immaterial in your argument since the main ones are available to Humans, Heroes and Hench alike.

Hmm, a team of 8 people making it easy usually will require co-ordination and understanding to make it work that way. Something that admittedly is becoming non-existent in GW (outside of guilds). And it also involves thinking too.....

Very true, there is very little difference due to templates and PVX making CAP builds available to the masses. The only skill really is a basic understanding of how to use the build and which buttons to press. And maybe a little thing called communication skills come into play, otherwise little else to be different with.

Anyway peeps, good luck on the remainder of this thread - I hope ANet pick up on some of the ideas within this as there is certainly food for thought.

Really, FUN is what important in a game.

In PvP fun also needs to go with balance of opportunities for both contenders, since it is also competition.

PvE, regardless of what some say, isn't a competition - until there is a rank of players it will never be.

There is no rank of players - so fun is it is the major point.

Anet made loads of mistakes by trying to balance drops and whatnot - nowadays drops are the most imbalanced ever - SC DROPS SIMPLY OVERWHELM ANY OTHER KIND OF PLAY.

Increase drops for real teamplay (not those SC which is 8 people playing alone in the same map or close) and add options for the players. 7 heroes is nice, especially because 6 heroes is already possible even for a single player.

It's a shame fun is subjective, oy?

Exactly.

But if my fun doesn't interferes with yours, what is the problem?

So lets say you like X genre of film and and I like genre Y.

And you get pissed because now your cinema also shows genre Y and so I don't have to go watch genre X.

I think if you like porn, I'm sure plenty of people are going to be pissed off if it starts showing at their nearest theaters. They sure don't have to go see the porn movies but they're still offended that they're even there.

The above applies a bit more to PvE skills, since here it can actually have more of an evident impact.

That sounds like people that simply wants to control what others do - societies have rules, but if porno isn't illegal, the theatres can show them. Rules can and do change but they need very good reason to change or you get the type of hypocrite societies that bash everything in the open and then in the shadows practice them.

In this case, the game shipped with henchmen and then shipped with heroes.

This is simple a further expanding of content already existent.

The benefits are simple to understand - someone that wants to play with 7 heroes can enjoy a bigger control and customization over there team - no need to have an henchmen with healing seed or healing breeze.

The alleged cons to 7 heroes involve the fact that people will PUG less - basically meaning that people are forced to play with other players to enjoy certain advantages. Or get stuck with poorer choices.

Even more interesting is that parties with 6 heroes are possible - both with 2 players or 1 player.

So 2 players can have control over all the skill on their party. 3 players can too. So can 8-12 players.

But if it is only one player YOU CAN'T.

Why? Because you are destroying the game of all other people - they say.

But I'm already playing alone! If 7 heroes is imbalanced, 6 aren't?

You can create macros for the heroes! - they say.

And can't you create macros for the players? Isn't that what bots are?

On your porn example, it would be as if you went on your own, your are a pervert amoral person, but if you go with someone else or in a group is all ok. Hell, if you buy 2 tickets it is ok!

But on your own?

Sorry dude, we can't have free independent people that can make their choices in a game.

Games are after all serious business, even the ones that aren't competitive.

And by the way, half-life 2 also requires connection to the internet even for solo.

GW PvE is pretty much a chat room where people can chat or just make groups to get their "private copies of the world".

Concluding, the only have argument in against 7 heroes is "If you have 7 heroes you can do everything on your own so you wont need me anymore ".

If GW required a party of 8 humans all the time I wouldn't have bought it.

I don't see how 7 heroes will revive a "dying" game. All I know it that playing with bots is boring.

This is why real-life examples are usually bad. We keep on pointing the faults of the hypothetical and going "but but but" - which is why I've responded in whole to avoid filling this thread with more semantical bullshit than it needs (just read the quote wars I've been having with all the previous posters in here). The crux of the issue is thus: any player can successfully solo *every* area - sans elite areas - with themselves, 3 heroes, and for henchmen.

The "need" of 7 heroes is selfish, since it can have anywhere from little to huge affect on group play for the sake of appearance. Function doesn't become a problem when the player has a sound amount of tools to override it.

The "want" is not, since the player recognizes and knows he has an easy time as it is and wouldn't mind having 7 heroes for a more customizable team of AI.

The player that already "has" more heroes is doing so through a much-less obvious approach. I can't say it has the same effect as ANet allowing more than 3 hero slots, since this is much more viewable and would catch the eye of many more players.

I'm not an advocate of solo play. I'm not an advocate of group play. I am an advocate of choice and am saying the choices we have right now are fine. ANet has provided us the players now with the option to play alone with far less restrictions from henchmen while still having enough customization to hold our own and successfully complete 99.7% of the game by ourselves.

I sure wouldn't mind 7 heroes, but I'm not gonna get ticked at ANet for not giving them to us. When the only enjoyment to be had from them is looks, I'm not going to put high priority on them.