A discussion on 7 heroes

A system that would be able to spot out the poor and decent players? That's pretty damned revolutionary (har har).

But seriously, that's way too broad and unspecific.

...Should be read.

shirosae - great freakin post man. That post should be stickied, forwarded to Andrew/Gaile (and yes, Andrew deserves to go first, since he seems to give the most straight-forward answers), and placed on ANets front door.

3 are enough. The community is struggling, outposts full of zombies with the 4 disease

10 out of 10

Seconded - great post shirosae. GW is supposedly casual friendly, grind free blah blah thats why the quality of average players in GW are so bad. The more dedicated players has no choice to go with H/H. But thats not the only reason.

Reasons to use heroes:

People live in different timezones - yeah its better if you live in America or Europe as you can find more players when you playing. I play in Australian timezone hence fewer people are playing during that time.

The PvE content is too big - 3 campaigns plus an expansion and then double that with NM and HM. Also farming and titles. Too much things to do.

Immature people - those people who like drawing penis and boobs should go learn arts than playing GW.

Ragequitters - Losing party member(s) right before or in middle of mission = increase of failure.

AFK/ leechers - Same as above but instead leechers possibly will get reward by doing nothing. Some people have real life interference so having H/H wont cause grief to other players.

Profession discrimination - Who needs assassins, paragons, etc? They are teh noobz right?

Reasons not to use heroes:

Imbalance - retarded argument, how about a team who can have up to 24 overpowered PvE skills and each of them can use consumable items?

Its online game, it suppose to be multi player not single player - another retarded argument, who are you trying to dictate other people gaming experience? FYI I play online games because of pvp such as FPS games, RTS games and GW included. If I only have short time to spare or just wanna have relaxing time, I'd roll up H/H in PvE. Im sure other people have similar playstyle hence H/H is the way to go.

Agreed. There aren't no where saying that you're meant to play with other people in Guild Wars.

Lol, you really expect anyone to want to play with you after handling that salty block with the yellow stain.

Hey, I didn't say I touched it!

Honest...

7 heros would have no adverse effect on the pugs at all. Anyone that is currently using 3 heros and 4 Hench would gain 4 better controlable chars.

Those that pug would still pug.

The majority of time I find myself using hero/hench is when either I have only a short time and rather not leave a mission/dungeon party hanging or when I am doing something like farming a green or points and know that others won't likely wish to make the same run repeatedly or once the item drops for me I can quit rather than keep runing till it drops for the entire party.

Give me access to 7 Heros, heck give me access to 12 and ill run them in the Deep and urgoz

My time is often short when I log on and I'd rather be able to jump into and complete something than sit and wait for a party to form then discuss what builds we need then find out somebody doesnt even have the quest or has no clue what to do.

For those that think 7 heros would make the game to easy, well its a game and if I want easy for a change why deny me? I can still go do hard mode or DoA if I want a challange, not to mention PvP.

Oh, I like shirosae's post a lot and (s)he states a lot of point are true.
Same for nugzta's arguments. I know them and am not going to argue over them.

However, I was not even thinking about the PuG situation in the first place.
While I don't support the general 'PuGs suck' statement, I can rely on my guild and alliance about 99% of the time.

Now I have these things called guild, alliance and friends list.
With those, I know who are the decent players and who are not.
Revolutionary? Nah.....

However, it is absolutely impossible now to schedule anything in advance besides putting it in guild notice.
Asking alliance officers to put it in their notice is also not really working when you want to schedule several things at once.
Guild website could be an option, however, less than half of the members have registered.
And alliance / friends don't check the website.
We could use the alliance leader's website (which we encourage), however, the same there, a lot of people don't check it that often.
Whisping my entire friendslist is not really an option.

Now suppose I could put in some kind of ingame schedule that is visible to guild/alliance/friends that I want to play Eternal Grove HM tomorrow at 7.00PM GMT, start from Euro Eng 1. Or vanquish Cursed Lands, same time, ToA Euro 2.
Perhaps with a "I'm in" option if people want to join. People can then see how many people in total have the same interest and are willing to join.
When people are honest (which I expect from guild/alliance/friends) they show up. Then it's just a matter of forming one or several teams and start playing.

In my opinion a feature like this would be a lot more valuable than playing with 7 heroes.
And it would support support the "the social interaction that is such a wonderful and desirable element of the game" without having to rely on PuGs.
People should be able to judge the original organizer if he/she would have a decent friends list and alliance.
If you are not sure, don't sign up and do something else.

[QUOTE]i waited a bit for someone else to answer that but i think it deserves an answer.

1. the HA was announced as an experiment due to player request and would be monitored and as much feedback from the community including polls discussion etc was not just asked for but repeatedly asked for as they would change it according to what most wanted

HEROES

the decision and testing of how many to allow was done BEFORE the first hero came into the game with Nightfall

they had to determine the maximum number of heroes before release and after testing the head designers decided that they would cap the heroes at 3 giving a player control over half the party allowing the remaining 4 slots to be filled as they wished.

2. that was a high level decision because it would affect the entire gameplay not just a fraction like HA

3. since you can fill in with henchies which have gotten much better (herta anybody?) the excuse that they are doing it to force us to pug is proven garbage

bottom line

HA was an experiment subject to change as feedback came in

HERO LIMIT was set in stone a year ago and GWEN is only adding to the choice you have in heroes not raising the cap

HA polls were asked for to help make a decision

HERO polls were never asked for as the top dogs had already agreed on the 3 hero cap for reasons all of them thought valid even if you disagree

HA discussion was ask/begged/solicited to help make a choice

HERO discussion was never asked for as the final decision had already been made making further discussion meaningless as they wont change

so you can make all the polls you want but when Anet/NCsoft says NO instead of it is under consideration i have never seen them change their minds on a basic gameplay item

You make it sound like 7 heroes and an ingame schedule are two different solutions for the same problem but they aren't. One offers more possibilities for the solo player, the other offers more possibilities for the people that want to form a team of real players. Implementing both of these features would improve the game for everyone, solo players and team players.

Absolutely missing the point. Ambivalent means "not caring whether they would use AI or human players."

For this target audience, it isn't about WANTING to use AI, it's about using something that is (1) easier to form and (2) has the same or more power than a PuG human team.

It's this same group that would likely use two elites on their skillbar, seven PvE only skills, etc...if you provide them a very powerful and quick option, most players would likely use it.

The more benefits (and possibly incentives) A-Net provides to playing solo, the more these ambivalent players will likely use the AI. And this will likely have an adverse impact to the multiplayer aspect of the game. As has been said before, although 7 heroes would be a "boon" to those who currently use AI almost exclusively, it comes at a cost that needs to be considered.

Please read my post on page 6 and provide me your rationale as to why (1) seven heroes would not have any adverse effect on PuGs considering the ambivalent players I refer to and (2) why "people that would PuG will always be able to PuG". Explain why you do not believe why more areas will become like Unwaking Waters and Eternal Grove where getting an all-human party together is currently almost relatively impossible.

Looks like this discussion is turning into into 7/8 Hero's vs. PuG groups.

Hero's dont ruin PuG groups...Titles do. Everyone in my guild now adays is all going in 500 different directions. Can you help me with this...Naww, im working on that.

Does your PuG group want to help me work on the Title im currently working on? I dont see many people making PuG groups to help Vanquish the area im working on.
I also dont see too many PuG groups willing to keep playing with a 60% DP, wich i have finished many areas in the game with. Just takes longer, but no one quits.

H/H teams are already easier to form and have the same or more power than a PuG human team.

Then following that logic and considering what I stated above, this group is already using H/H exclusively. In that case, how will adding more benefits for solo players make a difference?

Then they could simply add benefits/incentives for those ambivalent players to play in PuGs, like the ingame schedule mentioned above, instead of limiting the options for solo players.

This.

In Prophecies, people were in Mission towns because they were there to do the mission that started there. Most people within that town had the same goal...to form a group and do the mission. The smaller outpost towns were usually great starting points for specific quests, so people in those places also had a similar goal and would be in the outpost to form up a group.

Factions comes along and all the sudden you have Missions and Side Quests beginning in the same towns. Now we have a mass a people gathered in one place and each has mulitiple reasons for being there.

So now you have, say me for sake of example, going to a town called Townsville. I need to do the mission there. There are many players standing about but no one seems to be doing the mission. What are they all doing here?
1. Well, come to find out the are numerous side quest that start off from here. (lots of outpost in the huge Canthan city are jumping points for missions and side quests)

2. Some people are there to go out and farm monster bounties for their titles.

3. Some are there to do Hard Mode.

4. Some are there to sell their wares.

5. Some are jsut passing through.

6. etc. etc. etc.

So now I am standing there saying to myself "screw it, it will take to long to even find 1 person doing the same thing as me. I am just gonna grab some heroes and henches and go by myself."

Guild Wars has just grown waaaaaay to big and offers waaaaaay too much to do in order for Pick Up Groups to still be used when any great frequency. Each person has their own goals and their own set time they can play and their own things they want to do. It is really hard to find people doing the exact same thing as me.

I am not here to argue for or against more heroes. I just saying to those who are saying "you should be PuGing more" that this is no longer a viable, reasonable, easy thing to do. There are just simply too many different things going on with each person.

I would say to Anet, for GW2, please seperate you towns/goals better. One town should just be for Missions. Make that outpost the best place to leave from to do side quests. This may help boost commraderie and the number of PuG's. People in the same town would mostly have the same goal/reason for being there.

There is a large portion of the population that is NOT currently using H/H to complete PvE. It is this portion of the population that A-Net is concerned about 7 heroes adversely affecting, not those that currently use H/H almost exclusively.

Jumping to the conclusion that substantially all of the population either (1) exclusively plays multiplayer or (2) exclusively plays with H/H is one of the biggest fallacies I see in these threads. There is a large portion of the population that is "in between" those two camps, and that is the point I'm trying to get everyone to focus on, as that is where A-Net is likely focusing their attention.

I'm all for introducing mechanisms and/or incentives to play in multiplayer groups, but I don't think that is a mutually exclusive situation with the introduction seven heroes.

Jetdoc

What about those of us that want it for the reasons stated before? The whole time issues, afk often etc etc (You can always check back to read them all)

You also go ahead and link the people who are casual with the people who want to game on easy mode. Im fairly sure you will find that to be untrue. While there will be a small ammount of players who would always like things to be easier, that isnt what this is about.

This is about making the game more accessible to the casual player. Now Anet has done a great job of it compared to most games. Players have an option they can use if due to any reasons stated they dont/cant pug.

However this option is limited. Compared to someone who plays in a pug they are at a disadvantage. They have to take 4 set builds. Which until GW:EN are useless and even in GW:EN arent great. A few exceptions of course but its more the fact they dont work everywhere. With heroes you can change them to face the comming area. A henchmen is stuck running the same build even in an area where it may be much less effective.

Why should the casual player be at a disadvantage? The whole pull of GW to me was the skill > time it promoted.

I have never been in an elite area of the game and ive never been able to do HM.
I just dont have the time and if I joined a pug I would get part way through then have to leave. Even if I did have enough time set aside to do one of the above I will 90% of the time have to go afk multiple times for various reasons. I know I wouldnt like someone doing that to me so there is no way im going to pug with someone knowing thats what might happen.

I know that there are people in between the two camps, I'm one of them. I do join PuGs regularly despite knowing that a H/H team would perform better. What Anet doesn't consider, in my opinion, is that those people in between the two camps don't join PuGs because they are better than H/H, they have different reasons for doing so. It's not like we're in a situation where H/H teams are not as good as PuGs and full hero parties are way better. PuGs are already inferior to H/H teams to begin with. Therefore I can't help but disagree when people, and Anet, say that adding full hero parties will adversely affect that part of the community that still joins PuGs.

about the HM/NM comment, what difference would allowing 7 heroes in NM make? Yes it is 99% henchable, but even so allowing 7 heroes just makes it more fun.

Also you should be able to use 7 heroes in challenge missions, UW, FoW and DoA on NM at least.

/Anet are stupid. Really really stupid for not allowing 7 heroes.

Oh yea, in HM tyria please increase the party size from 4 to 6 because those damn grawls and charr's are too hard to beat with only 4 people. Add bigger mobs if needed.

Alright, first off, let it by known that while I am for the seven hero idea, my argument is based off fact, not bias.

Let's begin.



Some of the current arguments against 7 heros are:

-Over Powered Parties
-Game loses Social Aspect
-Things become too easy


Over powered parties? Give me a break. Let me tell you a few things. All these heros have the same skills available as players. They are not in the least bit more powerful than a full group, in fact, they underpower it greatly. Another thing, they cannot think. They cannot chain skills well (Assasins aside) they cannot judge what to not agro, they cannot spread well, and they do not follow specific commands without having to open all their HU's at once and have them perform the skills in the order you check them. (That's nearly impossible to coordinate in a hard area). They cannot conserve energy, and most of all, they cannot judge. They cannot judge between healing someone at 3/4's health vs. someone at 1/8 health. Sometimes you get lucky, but not usually. Unless you carry three hero monks, it's not a very pretty thing to hero your healing team in hard areas.

Heros are not over powered.



As for the social aspect of the game, PuGing is not the only social aspect of this game. There's a chat tab labeled "Guild Chat" and (Wait, there's more) yet ANOTHER one labeled "Alliance Chat". You can utilize these two tabs to talk to anyone in your guild. Your Guild.... oh yes... you've forgotten about guilds? You know, those things that people make to interact with a certain group of people? Hm? Sounds social to me.

If you like talking, join a guild that has an active chat line. There are only like one hundred thousand guilds to choose from that would probably take you. That's why they're THERE. To SOCIALIZE. Duh. If you want to interact with people, then join a talkative guild. That's all there is to it.

What I don't get is how people find PuGing social at all. I don't carry on a coversation with my group while doing a mission (or at least I wouldn't if I PuGed it). Do you? Seriously, who talks to the other people, aside from "Don't go there" or "Use X Skill now" or "You [email protected] noob".

How is this in the least bit social? There's no social difference between a player and a hero runnning beside me somewhere. And if you DO carry on conversations with your PuGs.... well.. er.. good for you. The rest of us don't.

As for the people who miss talking local chat, I don't. They miss the good old days where you could carry on a conversation in that chat. Let me tell you people something. There never WAS a time like that. Humans play this game, people. It's been available to humans from day one, and humans are idiots, therefore, they fill the local chat with idiotic things. Go to any town if you don't believe me. That's nothing new. Seriously. If you want to have a conversation, do it with your guild. No one's on? Find a new one.

Oh wait, I almost forgot to mention the suburb social aspect of this game. It's the tab on your far right labeled "Whisper". It's so amazing! You can contact any online player at any time regardless of guild or time zone! Talk all you want! (Note the sarcasm.)



The last thing people bitch about is the fact that the game will become too easy. Too easy.... oh dear god.

The game is already easy. You put skills on your bar to fit your situation, and you go kill things. That's the basis of everything in guild wars. There is nothing in this game that is NOT easy. There are things that are LONG. There are things that are BORING. There are things that are ANNOYING if a human player makes a stupid mistake, or decides to wipe the group, but nothing in this game is HARD.

Capturing Order of Undeath? Frostmaw's? Urgoz? DoA. These require a MINIMUM amount of thought. You watch out for boulders and tap skills on your bar. It's still the same concept, you just have to do it a tad faster. There is nothing in this game that if you are equipped for it, is not easy.

And if you're not equipped, then that's your own personal problem. Go deal with it.





Guild/Friend/Alliance Group > Seven Heros > Most PuGs.

That's the bottem line for gameplay.

Teamspeak/Vent > Guild/Alliance chat > Whisper/Friend chat > local chat > PuGs.


Taking PuGs away permanantly would not damage this line. And that's not even the case in question.


Bottem line:


No reason that seven heros should not be available for you to use.