A discussion on 7 heroes

THis arguement will go on forever
if you dont want 7 heros only use four(ok)
if you want 7 heros i dont see the harm
I leave you with one picture of advice

There is only thing to hate about heroes/wrong with them:

Missions and quests forcing you take one, even if you would like full human group. That lead to fact you HAD to play with heroes to train them for that. That is one and only occasion when heroes directly kill pugs and pugability.

Luckily, anet learned and eotn missions no longer make you use certain heroes and quests requiring heroes are somewhat rare.

Jesus Christ, reopened thread!
Revolution on Guru! Nobody's safe!

7 heroes would be, in the words of Peter Griffin, pretty frickin sweet.

But with the specific mention of buddy gaming by Strain in his GC speech ( http://www.guildwars.com/events/trad...7/gcspeech.php ) I think that they're not gonna do it.

Thanks!
TabascoSauce

(The following is a revision of a post I started on GWO, where 78+% of the people polled requested full hero parties.)

From the Official Wiki:

(Retrieved from "http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Talk:Hero")

Many, many of us have posted in many threads on many forums about this topic. I'll be very direct in beating this dead horse to its fullest:

1) All the encouragement in the world won't magically generate players in empty outposts. Try doing Eternal Grove or Dunes of Despair on Hard Mode with henchmen or PuGs.

2) Guilds are NOT always an option for everyone. If anything, saying we need to leave our current friends and family to join a different guild DESTROYS the social atmosphere of the game.

3) In spite of the above, I have tried to find a HM Guild. One was a scam to get people to farm Kurzick points for an alliance; another required people to be on every night at specific times (I have a life and family).

4) It is a waste of time and resources to equip 25 heroes when only a handful will ever see use.

5) Allowing full hero parties provides a whole new level of strategic and tactical depth to the game, by allowing us to build teams, ala old-style computer RPGs.

6) Few things are worse than a half-measure. On one hand, ANet gives us heroes and henchmen so we *can* solo, and then they gimp them (bad henchmen skill bars, 3-hero limit) to "encourage" us to be social. This is, quite simply, silly. Either eliminate heroes and henchmen entirely, or let us use them to their full potential.

7) PEOPLE DO NOT PLAY SOLO BECAUSE OF HEROES. Sorry to use caps, but Gaile's argument in this case COMPLETELY IGNORES what people have said in several forums. People play solo for a variety of reasons, including frustration with PuGs, unusual or chaotic schedules, and the enjoyment of building teams.

8) Allowing more than 3 heroes does not break the interface. The game ALREADY ALLOWS solo players to use more than 3 heroes, through access to a second account. Heroes beyond the first 3 can be treated as henchmen for control purposes -- problem solved.

9) Allowing more heroes per player PROMOTES Strain's much-vaunted "buddy gaming", by allowing someone with a complete set of equipped heroes to play with another person whose heroes may not be equipped or skilled.

I PuGged my way to Protector titles on all three campaigns with two characters; I spend a lot of time in the more unsual outposts helping people with quests and such. That won't change with the introduction of full heroes; however, without full hero groups, I'm likely to leave the game permanently now that I've finished GW:EN. And if I'm playing WoW or LotRO or something else, I'm not being social in GW or buying GW2.

Yeah Chaotic really hits the main points of why Anets reasoning behind this is flawed. I only wish they would actually respond in regards to the actual reaons people want 7 heroes.

Im sure there are others like me who have noticed that now in multiple threads discussions and suggestions of this nature are popping up. So hopefully they will notice enough to actually respond and then from there who knows

Points I agree largely with, Coyote, especially this one:

And to respond to the Gaile post in general:

If the social interaction was "so wonderful", you'd see me pugging more often. Sadly, that is not the case. I can't even begin to count how many horrid and awful experiences I've had with people in Guild Wars, and that's the game as a whole, not just in PUGs.

The number of good ones I can only count on one hand.

Well, Chaotic kinda wins this thread, there is little to add to what he posted and nothing to disagree with.

Yup, I agreed with Coyote on GWO and I agree with him here. Generally speaking I'm willing to give Anet the benefit of the doubt on most anything, and most of the time I agree with their decisions, but on this point I just can't see where they're coming from. Most everything they've ever said on this subject is pretty readily refuted. About the only thing they've got that would actually be a reason not to do it is "it would require a major overhaul of the interface and game design" but to be honest I don't see why that'd be the case. Still, since we don't have access to the code that would at least be something it'd be hard to shoot down.

Great post ChaoticCoyote, like I have stated previously there are too many problems with PuG, not necessarily because of PuG. There are many other factors involved; people mindset, real life, time availability, playstyle, definition of having fun, etc are different for each individual.

I've disputed several of these items on GWOnline (especially the one regarding "PEOPLE DO NOT PLAY SOLO BECAUSE OF HEROES"), and really don't want to rehash all of that here as well. Feel free to read my posts there and bring up any relevant items here for further debate.

By the way, I chuckle at statements like the one made above.

hypocrite

you yell majority should have your way.

if the majority turns out to be opposed to what you want

in your very own words

*then f them for being silent*

Another enlightened.
Explain, how is allowing people to choose telling them to have my own way?

Check GWO poll and stop this silly bulls**t champ

Forums are like elections...if you don't speak up then don't complain when the person you don't like gets elected.

It's all about contributing your opinion. In this case it's posting your opinion on 7 hero groups...in elections it's you voting for your candidate.

The ONLY majority that counts is whoever makes their voice heard...if you don't care enough to do that...then why should we care what you think?

Changes should be considered based on the people who are vocal about the issue. If people have a problem with the change after it is made...they should speak up about it. If they choose not to speak up about it...then why should we care what they think?


The only things I'll add to Coyote's post:
1. full coordinated guild groups unbalance the game more than anything...and those are currently possible. 7 Heroes wouldn't be any more unbalancing than a full guild group...and in reality isn't any better than a duo group with 6 heroes.
2. The majority of PUGs are not about socializing as Gaile would like to think. No the majority are all about getting the job done. You screw up in a PUG and you get verbally torn a new one. You have to deal with people whose intentions you have no idea about....whose skill-level you have no idea about. It is not about having fun.

Perfect example: Couple nights ago I PUGed Nundu Bay because I was having difficulty doing it with 3 Heroes/4 henchmen as a Warrior (I usually play ranged classes). I joined a group going for master's. I think only one other person in the group knew how to do the mission, but they didn't assert leadership over the group. I had to do it even though I was the last person to join the group. Turns out one of the people in the group was leeching and didn't really want to contribute at all to the group. They would stay behind everyone as we fought...even though they were a dervish. We experienced several near wipes, with a few directly related to the one leecher bringing Melonni in aggressive mode. The Ranger we had in the group was our puller...but was using a shortbow to pull. I had to step up and pull out my Nevermore Flatbow to pull for the group AS A WARRIOR (I usually play ranger and always keep a flatbow with me just in case I need it). The experience was filled with people pinging where to go...people not following those directions even when everyone agreed on where to go. People scribbled on the radar (fortunately no genitalia this time). Overall the experience was pretty much the same as most PUG experiences I've had. Not fun...all about getting the job done. Fortunately, despite the problems, we did get the job done and completed it for Masters. This was in Normal mode.

Btw....GWG Mods...stay out (unless flaming happens...but don't close the thread). Gaile said they weren't considering making the change...then never asked the issue to be dropped...and even if they did...you shouldn't be obeying every order they throw at you. You are supposedly independent....act like it. Yes this is directed at GWG mode Faer...you should have never closed the thread in the suggestions forum. (and yes I already sent Faer a pm about it)

[QUOTE]no it is the game designers opinion that counts

the vocal minority opposed the rune trader and guaranteed rune salvage as it would destroy the rune farming economy.

farmers bitched casual players cheered


and you are suddenly running this site giving orders?

ban time

Can we please keep this as a discussion of the originial topic? There is no need for flaming or anything like that.

You are welcome to disagree. Thats what this thread is for. But please, dont just say no or insult people. State why you think its a bad idea, then those that think it is a good idea will post why they disagree with your points. You can then come back and counter that or let someone else do it for you.

This is how forums work, when people drop to childishness it ruins it for everyone. This is a discussion on 7 heroes. If you dont want to discuss it you dont have to post, if you dont want to read it you dont have to.

This was a very good discussion into a few people started to derail it, lets try and go back to what it was.

and they base that opinion of current game dynamics, their own opinions and the opinions of the community...the only opinions in the community that count are the ones who voice their opinion in some way. Fan Forums are one way...emails to the devs are another...no longer playing is another...keeping quiet and continue playing is not a way to voice your opinion.

well then the casual players voiced their opinion after the fact...but they still voiced it.

No I am not and they merely suggestions based on past closed threads (closed for no reason other than the moderator's opinion on 7 heroes).




We have clearly stated reasons for the 7 hero change...the reasons why it won't happen have been given and we have refuted them soundly. The only obstacle is to convince the devs that this is the direction people want to go...keep beating the "dead horse" till it wakes up like favor did.

The only groups this change would really affect are solo players (positive) and PUGS (negative)....the difference is...PUGs rely on players who don't want to PUG to from groups...it is not a positive social experience...so there's no reason to promote it. People who want to PUG can PUG all they want. People who do not want to PUG should not be forced to.

[QUOTE] wrong according to a person who actually knows

[QUOTE] [QUOTE]actually it is the best way because they keep logs to see who and how many are playing any aspect of the game.

by playing they see that people like it

[QUOTE=Loviatar][QUOTE]

wrong according to a person who actually knows

[QUOTE]

Dev Update

"Gladiator Title Revisions

After reviewing and discussing the feedback received by players, we've decided to make the following change to the Gladiator Title"

No business would ignore feedback from it's customers, and I don't think Jeff Strain's comments should be taken as meaning that Anet doesn't care or listen to what the players think. They obviously do listen, and do make changes, even ones that they once swore they'd never make. They can't make decisions based on data logs alone, they need feedback from the players to understand what and why changes need to be made. The argument of "Just shut up and play, Anet knows what's best" is ludicrous.

Just because someone plays the game does not mean they like every part of it. All player data they collect has the same weight...so they see general trends. They see people going solo or joining a player group. All they see is someone joining a PUG...they don't see that they have no interest in being in the PUG and are only there because they want to get that part of the game done. They may be able to collect chat logs and determine an individual PUG is more social than the rest...but do you honestly think they do that? No...of course they don't because there are far too many PUGs to monitor. They have no way to determining the intentions behind player actions based on data. You really think that is the best way to get your opinion across to the devs? lol...sorry but I'll keep posting on forums. Why else would they have a community team who responds to concerns of players on forums and other fan sites such as wikis.

Now can you come up with an actual argument against 7 heroes? How about taking a shot at Coyote's list instead of trying to hijack the thread.

Holy Mary, mother of God..Pray for our Heros.
Love this picture..
Its a picture of the Three people that dont want 7/8 Hero parties.

I want 7 heros and screw all others who dont!

What it does mean is that A-net steps in when there is an actual problem.
There were problems with the Gladiator Titles (hard to get a glad point).
Two I heard most in RA:
- People leaving after they got their glad point (leaving someone in a streak of 9 with a new team that made things uncertain).
- People leaving when there was no monk in the game.
I know too little about TA to really comment on that, however, the times I was there it was dominated by guild teams. Meaning quite hard for Joe Average to get a decent random team and win 10 times in a row.

There are probably more reasons, but I don't know them.

Now, A-net observed it, heard the complaints on the issue, noticed it was a real problem and decided to fix the problem.

Now to the 7 hero request.
I have yet to hear one 'general problem' that would make the use of 7 heroes a 'must have'.
The problems are specific for certain missions/areas.
When A-net designed those areas to be played with human teams (Deep, Urgoz's come to mind) there is no reason to complain about them.
It's the design of the area that calls for humans, not the absence of heroes.

This would leave a very few places where the 3 hero / 4 hench are not good enough.
If you want a change on those, state exactly what the problem is and why every reasonable combination of heroes and hench fails.
Hard Mode Missions that require a coordinated split are the ones with the most problems.
It's also not possible to split the hench, meaning the best split you can make is 3 heroes and one human + 4 hench.

If this is a problem (and it is in at least two missions) ask A-net for a solution.
I think it's more than fair if an area is well documented to cause problem for a lot of experienced players to request a fix.

However, having a handfull of missions that are too hard for one human and 3 heroes/4 hench to handle is no reason to demand 7 heroes.

On ChaoticCoyote's list.
Good list, no arguments here.
However, it only states why A-net's point of view might be broken and why more heroes are not a problem.
However, it does not answer the questions:
- What is broken?
- Why does A-net need to fix it?
- Is implementing more heroes the only way to solve this problem?
- What about players that don't have heroes at all (Proph + Factions only)?

heres one: i want to do DoA (in which no henchmen are available), but I cant dedicate 7 hours of my time to one sitting. is that good enough for you? i paid for this high-end content, and I cant do it because I have a life?

I would love 7 heros. I would be able to do DoA in my own time. Do UW and FoW in my own time. I would NEVER have to worry about leavers or crap like that. Ever attempted to clear and do all the quests in UW and FoW with pugs? Notice how you never actually accomplish it? I would even be able to test my own team builds for stuff like UW, Fow, Doa, the deep, etc and not have to worry about people raging at me and calling me a noob... etc...

Besides, its PVE... its not going to unbalance anything. It just gonna make it more easy or something.

People who don't own Nightfall don't get access to its features. For example, people who dont own Nightfall dont get to use Nightfall skills and elites. If people want that, they pay for it. Its that simple, and it is how its been since the beginning. If anything, it would be a better marketing point for Anet... another reason for the people without it to purchase it.

I fully support 7/8 hero teams for PVE.

I made a photoshop of what 7 heroes will look like, posted it on that sardelac thread.

Just so you see what kind of technical hell it will be on the gui/interface.



This pretty much says "Casual player go to hell."

Let me guess.
No henchmen available, would that mean A-net intended that area to be played with other humans?

"I paid for this" as argument?
Did you? Seems to me you paid for a service A-net offers and calls Guild Wars.
Now you paid for a specific part of that service called Nightfall.

Now there is some content in Nightfall that the designers specifically made for people to team up (hence the lack of hench). The same with Deep and Urgoz's in Factions.
The design of those parts requires teaming up with at least one or two humans to have a full team.
That's a condition in the offered service.

"I can't play it because I have a life".
Well, don't we all have a life with choices to make?
You choose to do other things besides playing DoA.
Don't say it's not a choice.
You might have 100 other obligations that you think are more important than playing guild wars, but it's still a choice.
You could just say 'heck with them' and play guild wars.
However, there are trade-offs.
Your husband/wife may ditch you, your kids may hate you, your social life may go down the drain, your kids may hate you later, your boss may fire you because you are getting in late frequent.
Obvious reasons to not play GW 7 hours straight.

I already told in an other tread I had severely hindering RL obligations myself for a long period of time.
Not only in my spare time, but also while at work.
It was my choice to stay committed to my fiancee and help her as much as possible at that time and let some other things suffer, including work, social life and spare time.
Sure there would have been consequences if I did not stay committed and did not help, however it was still a choice.

So, in the end, you choose your 'life' to be more important than playing Guild Wars.
Well, fine with me, but don't complain about being unable to do /obtain certain stuff that take a lot of time to get.
That's a consequence of your choice!


Edit: adding comment:
You seem to miss the point.
A lot of people say "I can't do this/that because I have no full team of heroes".
Meaning things are broken from a H&H perspective.
Well, if those things are in Proph and Factions those, then the hench only players are even more left alone than the 3 hero/4 hench players.
For those players adding more heroes to the party is no solution.
And they also are customers of A-net.

7 heroes is a nice to have and not a must have.
If it is a must have game mechanics are broken at a certain point if it was not intended (see elite area discussion above), which can also influence people without access to heroes.
If that's the case, adding heroes is NOT the solution, fixing the game is!

How is a hero group supposed to split on The Deep anyway...........

Thats frigging impossible. No AI can match a human group on the tactics for that area....

i have to partialy concour with the jos, i want to be able to do the content where i cant go for lack of playin ppl, i never been to some of this places and i feel left behind, with the 7 heroes i might try and do them, so why dont we have it ?

plz give me my 7 heroes group

jos, it shouldnt BE about choice. Adding heros to be able to fill the party would allow me to do this...once again, the people who are AGAINST heros are trying to state that their game play is more important than mine. Look, I should not be punished because I have a life. Yes, it is a choice that I fully accept (hell, GW isnt everything), but that being said, I should not be punished from doing all that guild wars has to offer. Sorry, but you fail on the choice idea, try again plz

Impressive and well thought out argument you have there, however i have had no trouble with only having 3 heros. The game's difficulty and mechanics were also designed to only have 3. On top of that 7 heros would make it superior to human partys in every way at least now youve still got 4 hencies to drag along .

Just one word for this statement: Bullshit!

Please explain how 8 Humans all using vent/Team speak/skype...etc is worse than that 1 human and 7 A.I. please tell me I'd really like to know?

Bullshit. If anything asking for 7 heroes is the most greedy and self centered request i've heard in a while.


I'm against this idea because of

-the technical limitations on the gui and overcomplication of game mechanics will turn Guild Wars into a Real Time Strategy Game. Not to mention how overwhelming micromanaging 7 AIs will be with flagging/aggro etc.
-the mission designs of the much more difficult areas of the game CANNOT be beaten by 1 player and heroes alone PURELY by its designs.
-the increased handicap on new players who have a much smaller skill pool for heroes.
-dramatically lowered incentive to socialize with other players.

1/ technical, gui...over complication...etc / Answer; don't use all 7 if you don't want to.

2/ Mission designs...etc / Answer; Well we will have to PuG or go with Guildies....again we don't have to use the heroes.

3/ Increased handicap, new players ...etc / Answer; don't really understand this point, why would this increase the handicap on new player? The content of guildwars hasn't changed.

4/ Dramatically lowered incentive to PuG...etc / Answer; Sorry but Heroes haven't and wont do this, the player base has already done this by itself, and why do I have to socialize, stop telling me what to do!.......sheesh

bullshit? let me break it down, so even the simplist of minds could understand.

1) I want to do DoA.
2) I have a family.
3) I have kids.

So, your telling me, that because I have an outside life, and dont NEED (yes, the people who are complaining about socializing need to get out and see the sky every now and then) to socialize, that I cannot be allowed to do DoA, Deep, and Urgoz? Me being self centered? Ok peon, lets do this. While my wife is trying to get my attention, while my kids are screaming, let me join your group. Ill even be your monk. I will go afk on and off, and hopefully you will be ok. OH WAIT!! now the that the new /report feature is here, I cant even do that! Now I am stuck between Pugging and risking the multitudes of warnings, or I just cannot do it. Thank you for making sure the pugs get heard. GG Anet. GG.

How is not wanting to burden other players with having to leave in the middle of missions selfish? How is trying to force other players to have no other choice than to play with you NOT selfish? 7 heroes hurts no one, forcing people who can't or don't want to to play with others hurts everyone involved. PUGgers screw themselves by trying to force those of us that don't like to PUG to do so, all the while damaging our ability to enjoy the game.

I play with friends (who understand when I need to get up and leave the keyboard for a few minutes) and I play with H/H (who don't complain either). 7 heroes or 3 heroes, that's not going to change. 7 heroes makes it possible for me to play elite areas and various hard mode areas that have crappy henches when friends aren't around. That's it. It has no impact whatsoever on you.

What if i want to? Shouldnt i be allowed to play how i want? Isn't that the bullshit notion all this is built on?

If 7 heroes were an option as a convenience, dont you see that in fact it turns into a hassle because of the increased micromanaging and lack of gui space to begin with. 3 heroes is already pushing it. You add 7 heroes and then pets and you get one RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOed up interface.

You might as well just multi-box and macro multiple accounts....at least youll get ALL the drops to yourself.

Adding the option for more heroes forces a radical change in the interface as well as radical changes in the gameplay itself.

You move away from "Heroes as supplement for players" to "Players controlling heroe teams".

You move away from any sort of MMO experience to a 1 player game. And i dont think Anet wants to do that.

The Deep. If all hero teams were allowed, how would you compensate for the design of that mission? It requires player coordination to deal with the puzzles.

What if i want to use all heroes? Why cant i play the Deep how i want to? Why doesnt Anet change the whole design of the level to fit my playing style?

No, but take a new player with Nightfall. A new player doesnt have a lot of things unlocked, so their first 3 heroes (Warrior, Monk, Dervish) would not be very well equipped.

My question to you is, how do you justify giving veterans a MASSIVE advantage via having a fully decked out team vs a newbie who has very little unlocked skills and weapons to begin with, in a game thats supposedly skill vs time spent?

Im not telling you what to do. Im telling you what youre doing and how such attitudes and behaviour is whats contributing to the overall downfall of this gaming community, if you can even call it that.

overall:
Some of this shit isn't designed to be soloed by one person. Deal with it. Adding more heroes WONT FIX IT.

Seven hero controls is completely unnecessary.

Right now, I can play with one human and six heroes, merely by using a second a count to "loan" three heroes to my character. Lots of people have shown how this is done in various threads. The "borrowed" heroes act like henchmen with custom skill bars.

No need to clutter the UI at all.

The current AI would work fine; the first three heroes "hired" would have control bars and individual flags, the rest wouldn't.

Beisdes that, I don't use the control bars much anyway. With good skill sets, Heroes don't need to be micromanaged.

Then why not just ask for better henchmen, thats a perfectly viable and not to mention DOABLE option.

ok, please quit spewing random shit out of your mouth. This is PvE. Not PvP. It DOES NOT MATTER how quickly a veteran gets through a mission vs a newer player. Hell, its probably a good thing that they have some grounds to work on. Unlocked weapons? Please point me to the weapon creator for heros. I have yet to see that. Skill vs time spent arguement, is once again, bullshit. That aspect is geared towards PvP. PvE does not need skill. Please do your research.