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

Scary

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Sep 2007

Uhmmmm??

Limburgse Jagers [LJ]

N/

31 Jul 2009 at 05:45 - 2485

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kain Fz

Man, this is going nowhere until an anet representative hops in.
Even with the huge playerbase in favor of 7 heroes, all we're doing is saying the same thing we said from the start and that is stressing our reasoning for 7 heroes.

*sigh*
Come on anet.You said you didn't know what to put for the next content update. Yet you have a prize winner here -_-

They would be champions indeed

And a reaction of GW in this thread couldn't hurd.

pamelf

Forge Runner

Join Date: Aug 2006

Australia

Lost Templars [LoTe]

Me/Mo

31 Jul 2009 at 06:21 - 2486

Seriously, just look at the numbers. Over 1000 people on GURU ALONE want this implemented. I can only begin to imagine the sheer number of people across the game board who would also love this.

I'd like to suggest that Anet put a poll on the official site and advertise it on the login page. I'd like to see how many players would love to have this done.

It's possible, and should be implemented. End of story.

DreamWind

Forge Runner

Join Date: Oct 2006

E/Mo

31 Jul 2009 at 08:38 - 2487

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gun Pierson

On my Nightfall box it says: 'Heroes at your command: Recruit a team of fearless heroes who will fight at your side and follow orders in combat. Customise armour, equip weapons and lead your team to battle'

Let's get this out of the way once and for all...the boxes are NOT a good place to go for evidence on ANYTHING for many reasons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

That was a bit of a mistake of mine: I'm not saying that they didn't want a multiplayer game. I'm more saying that it's difficult to advocate for preserving multiplayer when I find it drastically limited and stressful.

I found it to be the part of the game that made it unique and awesome. To each his own I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I still don't think that one should be more advocated over the other. Choice is a huge determining factor in games these days, especially with one such as solo and co-op play. Both need an emphasis, and both sides need to accept the views of each other.

You have a point here. The problem I have is when one side of the game takes away from the other. This has been a major ongoing problem in Guild Wars for some time that Anet can't seem to solve.

Either way, I believe Anet didn't intend the game to have such an emphasis on solo play. Multiplayer PvP was the major emphasis originally. I suppose you can argue they SHOULD have had more of a solo intention, but I'm sure they didn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

Seriously, just look at the numbers. Over 1000 people on GURU ALONE want this implemented. I can only begin to imagine the sheer number of people across the game board who would also love this.

I'd like to suggest that Anet put a poll on the official site and advertise it on the login page. I'd like to see how many players would love to have this done.

It's possible, and should be implemented. End of story.

So polls should be the sole determining factor in what is implemented in the game? Ok how about a poll that asks if god mode or a skill that does 10 million damage should be implemented? Popular =/= Right.

Shasgaliel

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Apr 2008

[bomb]

31 Jul 2009 at 08:41 - 2488

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

So polls should be the sole determining factor in what is implemented in the game? Ok how about a poll that asks if god mode or a skill that does 10 million damage should be implemented? Popular =/= Right.

Indeed. We would have pre-nerf ursan back if the majority was to decide.... On the other hand when the game is getting emptier then ANET should at least have a look at the proposals from the people who still do and want to play the game.

Sleeper Service

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Dec 2005

CULT

31 Jul 2009 at 09:12 - 2489

Talking about Ursan is pointless and unrelated to this subject. the ONLY bad thing about Ursan was that the tyranny of one team build was replaced by another which was only accessible to those who had bought the latest campaign. And even that argument was kinda shaky since that phenomenon has been occurring since the beginning of GW.

Ursan is out now and what happened? back to the same old shitty builds with an overepowered PVE twist and the usual inability to play using your own ORIGINAL builds unless you buy two accounts.

Ursan changed nothing, it just made some people rich and gosh WOW what a gamebreaker being rich is, its not like Anet aint literally throwing money at us every month.

zwei2stein

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Jun 2006

Europe

The German Order [GER]

N/

31 Jul 2009 at 09:50 - 2490

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

So polls should be the sole determining factor in what is implemented in the game? Ok how about a poll that asks if god mode or a skill that does 10 million damage should be implemented? Popular =/= Right.

Are you so out of arguments that you have to throw strawmans around? It's not like people ask for gamebreaker.

There is another point hidden in there anyway: there are 20% which do no want it and you can count on partying with them because they obviously do not want to H/H stuff but rather play with Dreamwind.

And if others rather play with H/H than with ... well, they probably have reason for that and would do so in any case ... with 7 henches, with H/H or with 7 heroes. They could as well enjoy richer gameplay and ability to make full teambuild.

byteme!

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jan 2006

On Earth

W/P

31 Jul 2009 at 10:06 - 2491

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Are you so out of arguments that you have to throw strawmans around? It's not like people ask for gamebreaker.

That's exactly what I was thinking when I read his post. Who asks for such outrageous things anyways?

Shasgaliel

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Apr 2008

[bomb]

31 Jul 2009 at 10:11 - 2492

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

There is another point hidden in there anyway: there are 20% which do no want it and you can count on partying with them because they obviously do not want to H/H stuff but rather play with Dreamwind.

Thread is old. Most of them may have left the game or changed their mind. These numbers do not show anything reliable anymore and that is the point. Maybe the proportion of yes to no may indicate that on Guru there are (were) more people inclined for the 7 hero option but that is no excuse for making a personal attack just because someone does not share your point of view.

byteme!

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jan 2006

On Earth

W/P

31 Jul 2009 at 10:18 - 2493

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shasgaliel

Thread is old.

Thread may be old but the general consensus still remains intact even at present day.

Unreal Havoc

Guest

Join Date: Dec 2007

31 Jul 2009 at 10:50 - 2494

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeper Service

Talking about Ursan is pointless and unrelated to this subject. the ONLY bad thing about Ursan was that the tyranny of one team build was replaced by another which was only accessible to those who had bought the latest campaign. And even that argument was kinda shaky since that phenomenon has been occurring since the beginning of GW.

Ursan is out now and what happened? back to the same old shitty builds with an overepowered PVE twist and the usual inability to play using your own ORIGINAL builds unless you buy two accounts.

Ursan changed nothing, it just made some people rich and gosh WOW what a gamebreaker being rich is, its not like Anet aint literally throwing money at us every month.

Given that most areas can be completed without Ursan in record times, I don't see what harm it would do to bring it back at this stage of the game. It would probably still be slower than the current PvE speed clear meta but would at least give another option to those interested in getting in on it.

Gun Pierson

Forge Runner

Join Date: Feb 2006

Belgium

PIMP

Mo/

31 Jul 2009 at 11:07 - 2495

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Let's get this out of the way once and for all...the boxes are NOT a good place to go for evidence on ANYTHING for many reasons.

If you buy a Windows Vista box, you don't expect to find Windows XP in it, do you? You keep on ignoring the game was meant to have a solo option, as shown on all boxes and ingame from the day of release till today.

Shasgaliel

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Apr 2008

[bomb]

31 Jul 2009 at 11:28 - 2496

There is nothing about solo play on my prophecies box.

Actually what about people who do not have NF or EOTN?
This seems to be forgotten here. I raised this argument once already but only got one answer so I will repeat it. Yes I have a few prophecies only people in my guild so I know they do exist and at least one with factions only. There are more people like this out there. They cannot play with heroes since they do not have them. You want to make change which will make them even more alone and cater the needs of people owning other campaigns (including myself :P). Now several people with just 3 heroes need to pug with those guys to pass some of the missions. With 7 heroes missions can be easier and therefore people who have heroes will pug less leaving proph and factions only guys more alone. The counter argument which comes to my mind is that then instead of borrowing them 3 heroes we will be able to borrow them 6 and that is how we can help them other way than joining their team. But does it really solve the problem?

In my opinion 7 hero parties are a very nice suggestion but which needs also some additional development. It really asks for adding heroes to prophecies/factions. If not releasing it will do damage to some amount of gw population.

zwei2stein

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Jun 2006

Europe

The German Order [GER]

N/

31 Jul 2009 at 11:55 - 2497

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shasgaliel

... Now several people with just 3 heroes need to pug with those guys to pass some of the missions. With 7 heroes missions can be easier and therefore people who have heroes will pug less leaving proph and factions only guys more alone. The counter argument which comes to my mind is that then instead of borrowing them 3 heroes we will be able to borrow them 6 and that is how we can help them other way than joining their team. But does it really solve the problem?

In my opinion 7 hero parties are a very nice suggestion but which needs also some additional development. It really asks for adding heroes to prophecies/factions. If not releasing it will do damage to some amount of gw population.

No, not really.

First, lets assume they want to solo.

Henchmen are quite adequate to all of the normal mode prophecies. We all were quite able to to blaze through all of the game with Hench only.

And once they leave NM, they will face bigger obstacle than lack of heroes: lack of skills/pve only skills comes first, leaving them out even from pugs. Typical pug wammo might ask for HB monk. Can proph/factions monk bring it? No, not really.

Second lets assume they would loose out help of other people.

It is true that some missions run smoother with humans. But that is because of mission design requiring splits.

That is something that even 7h will not be able to do. 7h would not kill pugs for, say, Eternal Grove because they would not really help with that mission. They simply would not be able to.

But outside those situations, it will stay the same as it always was. Party formation for linear "kill stuff, move on" was never matter of necessity if we could take Henches. Prophecies only character would pass pug with those people too and take Alesia & co. Only difference is mainly having to pull carefully.

As you pointed out, someone could borrow full team to prophecies only player.

---

With your argument, you do not need 7h to ask for heroes for prohecies/factions. Impact is about the same in your specific case: first two campaign owners loose out with 3 heroes already.

Scary

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Sep 2007

Uhmmmm??

Limburgse Jagers [LJ]

N/

31 Jul 2009 at 11:56 - 2498

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shasgaliel

There is nothing about solo play on my prophecies box.

Actually what about people who do not have NF or EOTN?
This seems to be forgotten here. I raised this argument once already but only got one answer so I will repeat it. Yes I have a few prophecies only people in my guild so I know they do exist and at least one with factions only. There are more people like this out there. They cannot play with heroes since they do not have them. You want to make change which will make them even more alone and cater the needs of people owning other campaigns (including myself :P). Now several people with just 3 heroes need to pug with those guys to pass some of the missions. With 7 heroes missions can be easier and therefore people who have heroes will pug less leaving proph and factions only guys more alone. The counter argument which comes to my mind is that then instead of borrowing them 3 heroes we will be able to borrow them 6 and that is how we can help them other way than joining their team. But does it really solve the problem?

In my opinion 7 hero parties are a very nice suggestion but which needs also some additional development. It really asks for adding heroes to prophecies/factions. If not releasing it will do damage to some amount of gw population.

If there are Prophecies only people in your guild, ask them in 3 or 4 month's
if they still have prophecies only, or more asumable ...probably they wont
be in your guild anymore couse they have quit playing .
If not they have bought other parts and will share the same opinion as the most here.

Amen

sentex

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: May 2008

D/

31 Jul 2009 at 13:22 - 2499

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scary

If there are Prophecies only people in your guild, ask them in 3 or 4 month's
if they still have prophecies only, or more asumable ...probably they wont
be in your guild anymore couse they have quit playing .
If not they have bought other parts and will share the same opinion as the most here.

Amen

That is true.

I started buying Nightfall, and after a month or so i ended buying the rest of them.

Lots of builds / skills depends on having all the campaigns

own age myname

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Sep 2007

Minnesota

[TAS]

R/

31 Jul 2009 at 13:28 - 2500

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentex

That is true.

I started buying Nightfall, and after a month or so i ended buying the rest of them.

Lots of builds / skills depends on having all the campaigns

Kind of sad that to be good at the game you need all campaigns. I remember Anet saying only have 1 campaign you could get into anything easily (or something along those lines).

zwei2stein

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Jun 2006

Europe

The German Order [GER]

N/

31 Jul 2009 at 14:19 - 2501

Quote:

Originally Posted by own age myname

Kind of sad that to be good at the game you need all campaigns. I remember Anet saying only have 1 campaign you could get into anything easily (or something along those lines).

Oh, you most definitely can finish any content you have access to while only owning campaign it is located in. Otherwise game would fall apart quite fast because people would get pissed off game that "requires you to buy other stuff to play". If you know how to play you are even going to breeze it.

They are useful to get certain combos, but those are not required by game itself.

You need those campaigns to be competitive as far as PvE farming goes because players make those cross campaigns builds mandatory themselves.

---

There is only one instance where cross campaign is required: third room in Urgoz.

own age myname

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Sep 2007

Minnesota

[TAS]

R/

31 Jul 2009 at 14:32 - 2502

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Oh, you most definitely can finish any content you have access to while only owning campaign it is located in. Otherwise game would fall apart quite fast because people would get pissed off game that "requires you to buy other stuff to play". If you know how to play you are even going to breeze it.

They are useful to get certain combos, but those are not required by game itself.

You need those campaigns to be competitive as far as PvE farming goes because players make those cross campaigns builds mandatory themselves.

---

There is only one instance where cross campaign is required: third room in Urgoz.

I'd like to see you get into competitive pvp with only one campaign though.

I do agree you can pve with one campaign though, just a bit harder.

TottWriter

Academy Page

Join Date: Jul 2009

South East England

Gorgutz War Band

Mo/Me

31 Jul 2009 at 14:48 - 2503

Realistically, if they gave you the option of 7 heroes, they would seriously have to nerf them initially. Like, take away their armour and make you level them all from scratch. Maybe also make their skill pools independent of each other. Otherwise it would be like giving you an army with infinite resources.

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

31 Jul 2009 at 22:41 - 2504

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I found it to be the part of the game that made it unique and awesome. To each his own I guess.

Co-op these days certainly isn't unique, but it is awesome. Left 4 Dead is a wonderful example showing how much enjoyment you can find in a cooperative setting.

But L4D's co-op also isn't restricted in the same sense Guild Wars is. Imagine if you couldn't join games mid-progress in L4D, and if when a player left his character disappeared instead of being replaced by a different player or played by a bot. Sounds painful already. Then up the number of survivors required to 8 and the pain can multiply.

That's Guild Wars for you, and that's just part of it. Factor in GW not having a global search system and I can really sympathize with those shunning the PvE cooperative component of the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Either way, I believe Anet didn't intend the game to have such an emphasis on solo play. Multiplayer PvP was the major emphasis originally. I suppose you can argue they SHOULD have had more of a solo intention, but I'm sure they didn't.

Multiplayer should always be the encouraged playstyle.

But the only thing that should be encouraging it is enjoyment, not complete limitation.

Lishy

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jan 2008

31 Jul 2009 at 22:56 - 2505

Quote:

Originally Posted by TottWriter

Realistically, if they gave you the option of 7 heroes, they would seriously have to nerf them initially. Like, take away their armour and make you level them all from scratch. Maybe also make their skill pools independent of each other. Otherwise it would be like giving you an army with infinite resources.

Oh, gee. I can't imagine how powerful a full team of 8 coordinated humans on ventrillo are.

I hate to be rude, but you suggestion is quite retarded.
Heroes are underpowered by the fact they run on ai and can't use pve skills.

Daesu

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Oct 2008

01 Aug 2009 at 02:12 - 2506

Quote:

Originally Posted by TottWriter

Realistically, if they gave you the option of 7 heroes, they would seriously have to nerf them initially. Like, take away their armour and make you level them all from scratch. Maybe also make their skill pools independent of each other. Otherwise it would be like giving you an army with infinite resources.

7 well co-ordinated humans > 7 heroes anyday. Which is why the SC teams are human teams. 24 PvE skills > 3 PvE skills and Shadow Form abuse > any hero build, enough said.

If you want to nerf something overpowered, you should start with the full human teams.

Lishy

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jan 2008

01 Aug 2009 at 02:28 - 2507

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kain Fz

Oh, gee. I can't imagine how powerful a full team of 8 coordinated humans on ventrillo are.

I hate to be rude, but you suggestion is quite retarded.
Heroes are underpowered by the fact they run on ai and can't use pve skills.

I want to stress this post to qqers that heroes are op or make the game too easy.

R_Frost

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Jan 2006

California

Me/

01 Aug 2009 at 02:30 - 2508

Quote:

Originally Posted by makosi

If they do do it, it will probably cost us $9.99 or £6.99 per extra hero allowed in our characters' parties.

:-(

i would almost consider paying if they did that. most of the time for me just 1 maybe 2 extra heros bringing the total to 4 or 5 would be more then enough.

Lishy

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jan 2008

01 Aug 2009 at 02:41 - 2509

I'd buy 3 slots and take zho as my 7th hero.
She's so pwn and sexy <3

Best henchman in the game. One of the few I'm proud to take on my team since she's actually not too bad in combat and gets the job done excellently.

Pocketmancer

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: May 2005

01 Aug 2009 at 19:15 - 2510

7 heroes probably wouldn't matter to me too much considering I'd probably still log on my second account, throw on 3 extra Necro heroes, enter a zone, and log that account out. Of course, I'd probably end up trying to make some balanced teams at first if they did allow for 7 heroes though.

BlackSephir

Forge Runner

Join Date: Nov 2006

A/N

01 Aug 2009 at 20:50 - 2511

Quote:

Originally Posted by TottWriter

Realistically, if they gave you the option of 7 heroes, they would seriously have to nerf them initially. Like, take away their armour and make you level them all from scratch. Maybe also make their skill pools independent of each other. Otherwise it would be like giving you an army with infinite resources.

How about you go, level up and buy armour and weapons for all your 7 party members, huh, sweetheart?

Lishy

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jan 2008

01 Aug 2009 at 20:50 - 2512

Over 120 pages and almost 1100 votes in favor.
Come on anet. Pleeeeease implement 7 heroes, possibly with PvE skills

TottWriter

Academy Page

Join Date: Jul 2009

South East England

Gorgutz War Band

Mo/Me

01 Aug 2009 at 21:40 - 2513

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSephir

How about you go, level up and buy armour and weapons for all your 7 party members, huh, sweetheart?

I wasn't saying it as though that would be the most wonderful implementation from our perspective as players. I was simply extrapolating; given that pretty much everyone assumes they won't do this because it would kill pugs, implementing a 7-hero system with most heroes having max armour and a large(ish) cache of skills is never going to happen.

What I was saying (and didn't explain well) is that they only way I could ever see them giving 7-hero parties is if they took away with the other hand.

Improvavel

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Apr 2007

02 Aug 2009 at 12:02 - 2514

Quote:

Originally Posted by TottWriter

I wasn't saying it as though that would be the most wonderful implementation from our perspective as players. I was simply extrapolating; given that pretty much everyone assumes they won't do this because it would kill pugs, implementing a 7-hero system with most heroes having max armour and a large(ish) cache of skills is never going to happen.

What I was saying (and didn't explain well) is that they only way I could ever see them giving 7-hero parties is if they took away with the other hand.

And since when does max armor, max weapons and large pool of skills matter to crush the early PvE-mid PvE?

On my new account (and again I'm playing with a friend with also a new account, so 2players+6heroes) my heroes running with 2 and even 3 empty skill slots, no runes and pickup weapons will slaughter everything in their path.

The main difference in early mid game between heroes and henchmen is that you don't need to pull carefully.

Late game you build your entire team in a synergised way.

Team build is an important aspect of Guild Wars - players needing to resort to henchmen won't be able to enjoy that aspect fully.

There are no overpowered heroes - only good players and bad players and overpowered human builds and consumables.

UnChosen

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Mar 2006

02 Aug 2009 at 23:30 - 2515

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

...

Heroes are overpowered...you don't need to spend 15 min to form it. This is the inherent advantage heroes have that cannot be beaten no matter how good players are. Stuff like SF and PvE skills are not the answer because eventually ANet always caves in to the whining and nerfs them. In non speed clear scenarios, all those overpowered skills don't even save people that much time...SF is a glorified safe tanking skill in pug, and tanking takes even more time. Consumables cost money...and didn't you complain when I suggested paying in game gold per use for extra heroes? Not to mention heroes team can use consumables too.

That 15 min convenience is the thing that needs to be "balanced", then I could careless if people still choose heroes.

1) Improve group forming
-Doubtful...they already did a botched job the first time they tried with the party search thing. Not to mention resource intensive.

2) Limit Heroes
-What they're doing right now

3) Disincentives to use 7 heroes
-Pay to use or scale the drops downward like I suggested, hard to implement without complaints.

4) Incentives to group method 1: More "powerful" skills for human groups
-OMFG, Anet is ruining PvE, nerf those OP skills now, pugs are managing to finish non-endgame areas OMG.

5) Incentives to group method B: More drops for human groups
-OMFG, Anet is ruining the economy, why should those pugs get more drops when I'm doing as much work *cough* with my heroes.

Of course my preference had always been a mix of Option 1,4 and 5...too bad at the time of writing this post another "nerf SF to kill UWSC" thread popped up again.

Lishy

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jan 2008

02 Aug 2009 at 23:34 - 2516

So heroes are overpowered because it doesn't take 15 mins to find a group?
My comment:
What

Zahr Dalsk

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Aug 2007

Canada

03 Aug 2009 at 02:20 - 2517

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kain Fz

So heroes are overpowered because it doesn't take 15 mins to find a group?
My comment:
What

What he means is that people would have too much fun instead of suffering through the process of multiplayer/PUG gameplay.

People who are against 7-hero parties do not want H/H players to have fun, ergo they will disagree with any suggestions to improve heroes.

Lishy

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jan 2008

03 Aug 2009 at 02:34 - 2518

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

People who are against 7-hero parties do not want H/H players to have fun, ergo they will disagree with any suggestions to improve heroes.

Mmmhhhmmm... Methinks anet isn't stupid enough to listen to their suggestions.
We'll get 7 heroes this content update. If not, I can't say it's the fault of devs. They just do what they're told :P

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

03 Aug 2009 at 02:45 - 2519

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

People who are against 7-hero parties do not want H/H players to have fun, ergo they will disagree with any suggestions to improve heroes.

I want to have fun, too, but given how non-essential 7 heroes are to a successful GW PvE experience I don't want to put it on a priority, plus we don't know the mentalities that'll arise with the implementation.

Zahr Dalsk

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Aug 2007

Canada

03 Aug 2009 at 04:42 - 2520

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I want to have fun, too, but given how non-essential 7 heroes are to a successful GW PvE experience I don't want to put it on a priority, plus we don't know the mentalities that'll arise with the implementation.

Priority. That's something we hear a lot.

Sometimes important things happen. Like the spirit update, for example, or the BMP. Sometimes developer time is spent on frivolous, even detrimental things like the Zaishen Title Track.

All a question of whether the proposed change is more important than other planned changes.

So look at it this way: do the developers have something amazing planned, something so good it's better than getting seven heroes? If they do, then by all means, leave seven heroes for later. But if they're just planning on... doing nothing? Or doing a meaningless update full of things no one wants? Then I'd say seven heroes are an excellent use of their time.

Seven heroes would be a very, very positive step, so if there's something planned that's an even better use of developer time, great. I assume whatever this thing they're working on is going to amaze and delight us even more than seven heroes would.

hurdlebeast

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Jan 2007

W/Mo-Smashing Beast; Mo-Monk Beast

E/Me

03 Aug 2009 at 04:55 - 2521

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Priority. That's something we hear a lot.

Seven heroes would be a very, very positive step, so if there's something planned that's an even better use of developer time, great. I assume whatever this thing they're working on is going to amaze and delight us even more than seven heroes would.

Guild Wars 2, mebbe?

I think (personally) that 7 heroes would make the game feel more like a single-player adventure, rather than a true MMORPG...but, I find myself constantly using the 3 hero-4 hench group far more than the +7 humans group. Simply put, it's faster, easier, and more "controllable". Yes hench/heroes will have pathing issues, questionable AI, and less of a human feel to them. Sadly, though, it's still more fun than most PuG are. Unless you are doing a very specific run, it's hard to even find a PuG for 99% of the content. You can't blame the party-finder (or lack thereof); most people are doing end-game speed runs (with very, very specific builds) or PvPing. Those that are doing general PvE are usually running Hero/Hench groups anyways, and not looking for more people, who may be unreliable.

In a nutshell, I don't agree with the idea of an MMORPG being made into just an RPG, but at this point, I think it may be Anet's best move.

Zahr Dalsk

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Aug 2007

Canada

03 Aug 2009 at 04:59 - 2522

Quote:

Originally Posted by hurdlebeast

Guild Wars 2, mebbe?

I was referring to the team that does GW1 updates -_________-

Quote:

Originally Posted by hurdlebeast

I think (personally) that 7 heroes would make the game feel more like a single-player adventure, rather than a true MMORPG

In a nutshell, I don't agree with the idea of an MMORPG being made into just an RPG, but at this point, I think it may be Anet's best move.

1. GW was never a true MMO.

2. Guess what? We're already playing singleplayer. Have been for years. The tards in pickup groups took care of that.

Actually, it's not even the tards so much as the general concept of team-reliant multiplayer. You find me a pickup group that's willing to accept me taking several minutes between every fight to browse 4chan, and I'll find you a pickup group that doesn't exist.

Faer

La-Li-Lu-Le-Lo

Join Date: Feb 2006

03 Aug 2009 at 05:11 - 2523

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

People who are against 7-hero parties do not want H/H players to have fun, ergo they will disagree with any suggestions to improve heroes.

ArenaNet is against seven heroes.

Guess the devs don't want you to have fun.

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

03 Aug 2009 at 05:19 - 2524

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Seven heroes would be a very, very positive step, so if there's something planned that's an even better use of developer time, great. I assume whatever this thing they're working on is going to amaze and delight us even more than seven heroes would.

Hopefully it's making the PvE campaigns more user friendly, since that should've been priority since day one. The soloers are totally fine right now, and we can see 99% of the game by ourselves with just 3 heroes. 7 heroes is more appearance and flavor more than function: it's all want, not need. Now that soloers have been catered to, ANet REALLY needs to fix a lot of what's hindering the multiplayer experience from actually being enjoyable.

So yay on 7 heroes, but only under two conditions: 1. Make pugging less of a pain in the ass, 2. balance the game because otherwise we're screwed with another highly powerful but boring cookie cutter.