A discussion on 7 heroes

You can do that H/H now...adding more heroes doesnt add or remove any advantage to that. So why is it being used as a point of argument?

Oh please dont do this to me.

You know full well you have asked that before and I have given all my reasons. Do I have to rewrite everything I have previousely said in each new post?



h/h is extremely weak when compared to a team of 8 players. Outside of GW:EN hench builds are shocking, they dont even have 8 skills!
Even in GW:EN there are only a few that are ok. Even then since they are stuck as 1 build its not even comparable to a player.

So to make things more even between solo and teaming grant 7 heroes.
8 players will still have the advantage due to the reasons stated before (And dont even think about making me say them again...ill cry )
BUT solo will now be on a level much closer to that of teaming with players.

Shorter post because people need to start reading back instead of asking the same questions.

You have been warned.
There will be tears next time.

yes and out of your reasons i only see the ONE advantage over the existing system is that Heroes are better than henchmen as your reasoning for wanting the change.

So i return to my question.

Why cant we just improve the henchmen?

I've proposed this, but with the caveat that they would only be allowed in hard mode and in elite mission areas.

I think that would solve a bit of the clamor for these, as many people have stated it's pretty simple to complete all campaigns in normal mode with H/H as it stands today. Most of the PuG clamoring crowd are worried about their availability in normal mode, since hard mode PuGs are almost non-existant.

Oh improving henchmen is fine. As long as they can have custom skill bars, equipment and can be controlled.

So basically as long as they are the same as heroes its all good

The point is to make them as close to a real player as possible. So they need custom bars because a player can change skills for each area.
Custom equipment because players can do that as well, also if your changing builds to make your ranger use a sword for example if wouldnt make sense if he stuck with his bow.
And you need to control them because on an 8 player team each bar is controllable.

All the negatives to using AI still apply so they arent as good as players, but it now makes going solo an actual balanced option.



Also I must ask, you dont think any of the reasons like allowing casual players to finally access things like HM, to be able to play on a similar level to player teams and to be able to play the game how they want are advantages?

I think soloing is perfectly fine as is. The areas you cannot do with henchmen are the ones where henchmen or heroes wouldnt do so well in a solo anyway.

I think casual players and Hard Mode in the same sentence is an oxymoron and a joke.

HM was not made for casual players. Dumbing it down defeats the purpose of making it hard.

I think anyone who plays HM and considers themselves a casual player is delusional.

Im sorry how is adding 7 heroes dumbing down HM?

And perhaps the term casual player is confusing you. It doesnt mean a bad player. It means a player who doesnt play as often as hardcore players. They can be just as good or better.


It will be just as hard, they will use the same skills, they will do the same damage, you will face the same bosses. It will be HM in everyway shape and form. It wont be easier.

So yeah the 2 key points to learn from this post.

Casual player != Bad player
Heroes != Easier


*Edit*

Also is it fine that people who solo dont have as good teams as those that go with players? That isnt balanced in anyway. Its not even close. Both types of gameplay are advertised, both are supported, why arent they both equal (Or as equal as they can be with the current AI)

A PUG Monk > Dunkoro > Mehnlo.

Unfortunately, the PUG monk leaves midway through the mission because mommy wants him to wash dishes.

A PUG Ele > Zhedd > Cynn.

Unfortunately, the PUG Ele whines and moans the whole way.

A PUG Mesmer... WTF takes mesmers?

A PUG Ranger > Jin > Zho.

Unfortunately a PUG Ranger stands at the spawn and doesn't move.

A PUG Warrior > Koss > Talon Silverwing.

Unfortunately the PUG warrior does not realize this and Leeroy's everything.

At the end of the day, a good PUG group will be superior to an all hero group, which in turn is superior to taking all henchmen. Unfortunately, most PUG's are comprised of at least one idiot who ruins it all. Think about it... 1 in 8 people is an idiot. That's fairly damn accurate when you think about it. PUG's can be rewarding, but more often than not, they aren't. Especially if you play a Mesmer, Assassin, sometimes Ranger, sometimes Dervish, or Paragon... because then you can barely join a PUG.

If PUG's don't work out, you're left with a trainwreck of a middle ground, where you have to use 3 heroes and 4 henchmen. Now you're left figuring out who to take and who to cut. Do you go with Talk and Dunk for good healing, but get crap for damage with Devona or Talon? Or do you go with Koss and Zhed to lay the smack down, but die because Mehnlo and Lina aren't up to the task?

You end up not being able to play the way you'd like to, because you adjust your own build to deal with henchmen's shortcomings. The W/E/Mo trinity can just PUG it, with a token MM for shield duty. Everyone else is hosed. And even the trinity have problems getting in PUGs, usually having to wait long periods of time.

And then there are certain missions where real people are very much needed to have a good shot at success. Unfortunately no one is in the outpost. So now you either wait for days for enough people for a PUG, or take 4 inadequate henchmen. 7 heroes would help out so much here.

I know everything here has been said, and said more eloquently, but when people aren't listening, you have to repeat yourself.

Actually Edge you brought up more good points. Another good post.

Access to Hard Mode not possible for 'casual players'?
As I stated before some HM missions are indeed near impossible with a H&H team.
However, I can tell you, as member of a Hard Mode guild (well EotN messed a little with that, but we get back on track) that all areas are possible to vanquish with H&H and the same is true for all missions except a hand full.

There are not many people to play HM?
That's a fact and a problem in my opinion, needs a fix but that fix is not adding heroes. It's enabling players to team up easier.

I know there are disadvantages when playing with H&H instead of two humans and 6 heroes.
8 humans are even more powerfull. Unless it's a PuG, then there is a chance they fall in the H&H level or even worse.
Comparing a guild team to heroes is not even fair.

When we get new members in our guild, we have observed the playing style before recruitment.
So we know it's not a Leeroy. We also know if he/she is a leader (making good or bad choices) or a follower. Both are fine but it's usefull to know.
When playing in guild teams that player will get skill instructions (not as demanding in PuGs) and advice in playing the build if needed.
Some times there is advice on certain skill combinations to use or to avoid.
When playing HM, a lot do just fine, some need extra advice. We take time to give that advice and tell people why things work or don't work.

In the end, when playing with full guild team (which does not happen that often) we are playing with a team with countless hours of (PvE/PvP) experience and a lot of times experience with playing together with other guildies. Skills are adjusted to the team.
People know when to focus fire and when to go off-target.

Now compare that to the average PuG, which would be the only fair reference point for 7-hero teams.
You don't have control over the skills and playing style of your PuG members.
They may be decent, you keep them. They may be bad, you kick them.
You might be looking for a SF ele, but your PuG member does only have Prophecies. What do you do?
This takes time. However, when the right player does not show up, you have to settle with someone else or cancel whatever you were doing.
I remember teaming times up to an hour for steel wall Deep teams or waiting very long for a specific player/build in DoA. We cancelled runs because of this.

This would be some of the reasons why 7 heroes are more powerfull than the average PuG.
You have control over the skills of the entire group and more control over group playing style.
Compared to a coordinated pug the 7 heroes are underpowered. But the 7-hero team is set up in a couple of minutes. Your coordinated PuG may never get going.

Making it easier with more powerful tools is still making it easier.

I see casual player as someone who plays casually. (labeled casual) Doesnt put in so much hours, doesnt really dig too deep. Just enjoys it.

Im not referring to hardcore players who play OCCASSIONALLY or have limited time (although i have used the terms interchangably beforem hence im clarifying it now, labeled casual hardcore).

A casual player would not be expected to put in the effort to play HM at all.

Now a hardcore player who plays occassionaly, if they want to play HM, can't expect to be able to achieve it without putting in more time than what they put in normal mode, simply because of the ramped up difficulty.

I don't think Anet expects you to be able to beat all of it with hero/hench teams either.

I think, and this is just me, that Anet considers hero/henching to be more on the casual side of the game (casual). Its supported up to the point where it is common content. As the player progresses and gets better and moves on to harder content, more hardcore content, increasingly better and better tactics open up that can only be done with other players which fall more into the realm of the hardcore.

The point here is while it may be possible, why does it have to be harder for someone going solo? Why should they have to go with a weaker team?


Again the reason 7 heroes are wanted is because h/h is so weak. As much as a decent search would be nice it wouldnt make all that much of a difference. Anyone that wants to do HM in a specific area with a pug....will be in that area looking for a pug. Its not like people hang out in LA trying to get a HM group for Dunes of Despair.

Yes it is fair, we are comparing the best someone playing with a team can get, to a best someone playing solo can get. As you can obviousely see yourself they arent balanced.


Its not making it easier....
Its easier than h/h yes. But 7 heroes is still worse than 8 players. So it doesnt make it easier to do. It makes another option more balanced.


So a casual player is about enjoyment, they cant enjoy HM?

Im a casual player. I find NM to be pretty easy. There is a reason I would like to get into HM, but since im casual I dont have the time to form a team or the time to dedicate to a proper HM guild.



Exactly the reason we need 7 heroes. If even Anet realises they are underpowered when compared to players shouldnt they see its time to balance the 2 options? To actually give people a valid choice on how they want to complete part of the game?


h/h is used by people with less time than those that are able to get teams of players. Its not about wanting to play less, being lesser players or however you choose to look at it. I want to do HM. The only way I currently can is with h/h. However because of this im at a serious disadvantage.

Why? Whats so wrong about players will less time being able to play the game?

More like absurd strawmans ...

Because improved henchmen would be same for everyone, but not everyone has same idea of what works best ...

Lets take Orion for example, what would improved orion look like?

For me it would be SS warder, for my friend it would be UG warder, Someone else would like him to be plain SF ele while some other guy would like him to be blind bot. /For me, for example, 'improved' GWEN Herta is inferior to NF Herta.../

Then there is issue with class locks. Prohecies henches lack 4 classes to pick from. Lets imagine my ideal (or "fun") strategy would be PC (N), 2 dervishes, 2 paragons, monk and 2 ritus /my "outcast build", impresive on paper/, i could achieve it with aviable heroes, but not with henches in any place, even if they were specced my way.

Henches dont traditionally have secondaries, huge difference.

Henches dont take your equipment. Even if improved henches had better equip like all mods on weapons, runes, insignia ... you get to unpleasant discussions (moar energy vs moar health, sups vs minors, sundering vs whatever....)

Henches have to be designed to work pretty much everywhere ... lets imagine that we agreed on improving Stephan - he would be cripslash warrior. That would make him pretty bad choice if you are going ot fight undead, jades or enchanted. Or you can give him build not dependant on oponents being fleshy , which would be subpar in areas where cripslash worked well. ...

---

Improved henchies thus wouldnt be that much improved at all ... unless they become hero-like in customizability, but then ... why not simply have heroes.

Just because 8 human players can be better then a party of 7 heroes, does not mean they are always better.

1. There are simply some things heroes are better at players at, like interrupting. Certain builds simply favor hero AI (Interrupters, condition spreaders, MMs). The balancing point on a few skills is that they are hard for a human player to manage on multiple targets effectively, hero AI solves that problem.

2. Yes heroes do make the game easier. How many of you played through the game with heroes and henchmen, and how many played through with hench? The introduction of heroes made proph and factions so much easier. Yes, you could have found a pug, but the idea behind it is total control. With a total hero group, you gain total control. No communication, no timing problems, and slower innovation. With everyone playing alone, the game grows stagnant, because communication between players, and the exchange of ideas becomes minimal.

This is where you fail big time.

The best level the 'solo-player' can get is PuG.
Why? Because he is not able to spend time in guild teams building those superior teams.
The superior guild teams are the ones with tons of experience and dedication to a single goal.
There is no way you can compare a guild like [Kaiz] to the average guild.
Even more extreme for high-ranked PvP guilds that are on the ladder or dominating HA constantly.

It's like me forming a HA guild team right now and comparing it to Electronic Empire [eE] (guild of the week).
Oh look, their guild team is so much better than my guild team.

If you want to compare to guild teams, compare to the average guild team.
I really wonder if the average guild team is better than H&H.
My experience from previous alliances tell me most of them suck just as much as PuGs. However, in a guild/alliance it's somewhat easier to find someone with experience that can lead a team and guild/alliance teams are more willing to listen to people taking the leadership role.

The main difference between those average guild teams and H&H is that H&H perform fairly constant. They have one AI that is fixed.
Players can learn, making them better players and move past the PuG level.
However, that takes time from an experienced player to take the lead and help those players get better.
And there is always the risk those experienced players leave for an other guild. So in a guild you have to maintain the level, introducing a lot of average players would make a good guild average.

With H&H you don't have to maintain experience, it's always the same.
No experience drain, no excell beyond H&H.

Might as well close the thread, 7 heroes isn't happening in GW, ever.
Not having 7 heroes encourages at least 2 people to play together, this is a MULTIPLAYER designed game. if you had 7 heroes to control they could just sell this as an offline game ffs…

You can't read, can you? Because if you could and read the damn topic you would know that GW was advertised as a multiplayer game but also a game in which you can play with computer AI.
Besides, you won't be the one telling me how I'm supposed to play buddy. You want to deal with pugs? Fine, I'm sure you enjoy company of wammos, but since I won't ever play with you, give me 7 heroes because nothing will change for YOU.
Oh, alpha and omega has spoken! Ultimate knowledge! The greatest Oracle.

If you got only 30-45 minutes of play time..

7 Heroes, 49 skills + 7 Elite skills, 70.000 faction.
5-20 minutes queue time to get into a battle.
Runes, insignias and weapons on those heroes, means lot of gold, since you want them to be good. This means again a lot farming required.
I'm not including Solo farming builds on the simple reason, that it takes time to learn and use those builds.
So this should take xxx hours get your heroes usable correct?

But what about the 30-45 minutes time to play then?

That is why I don't believe in the current arguments for 7 heroes.
It will give those who use a lot of time in game an advantage, that includes me.
Don't say that it won't be used for fast hard-mode and elite farming.
And I think the majority of people asking for 7 heroes, ask for it so they can use them for just that.
Which means, you can shave a lot of time of plenty good farming spots.
And in the end this will then really only benefit those who got time to play more.

I think a much better solution would be, that Anet goes over the current henchmen builds, improves them a bit, and adds henchmen in the outposts where there are none.
This will benefit even those who maximum got time to play 20 minutes each day.

Question is just how easy should it be made?

Sometimes I can't stop thinking if some of those coming with the "give me 7 heroes arguments", played on some 100x exp, gold and drop pirate server lately. Beat the game in 2 hours and the fun is over.
What happened to long termed fun for your money?

Get you facts straight please.
There are several people who played the complete GW:EN with the current H+H party system.
If you don't have time to play a dungeon for more then 45 minutes, well that is really you problem isn't it?
Maybe you should play content that you got the time for then, and do the dungeons another day.
Adjusting the game to be so fast and easy, as it will get with 7 heroes, will kill it pretty fast.
People will get bored and quit. But you don't realize that do you?

A net has only said about a million times it isn't going to happen.
How about you go post in the thread suggesting level cap be raised above 20?
Why dont you go post some concept classes now?
I think new professions in GW is real likely too...
Why not start some more threads suggesting things that a-net has repeatedly said they will not do.


You troll




P.S. - I AM the Alpha and the Omega. Suprised you recognized me.

And it's been said before- things change. But I guess you'd have to read the thread to know about it, but I expect too much from special people like you.

Great example of strawman, nice trolling.

And once again
Because, once again so you'd understand, things do change.

What was that about 20 lvl cap?

It's no longer a real question of 'if' Anet will do this, it has become a question of WHY NOT?

I still stand by my reasoning that since I'm using 3heros/4hench now my using 7heros would have 0 impact on others.

Stating that those who pug now would suddenly stop just because they have more options now then before is a joke. I was using 7 Hench long long before the heros came out, it was just a more convienent way for me to play. As for spending time to equip my Heros, there are these things called drops, maybe youve heard of them? I've probably merched more runes than I would need to outfit 100 heros. As for weapons its amazing how well collector items work for them, max stats with nice mods. Infact if you have the option to use 3heros now, would it not make sense to equip all of them, or do you use the same 3 heros every time you play????

Drops are better with live people, the game is easier with live people.

Heros are a convinience that we would like, nothing more.

Please read my numerous posts on the impact to PuGs. As I've said before, yes, there are a number of players that use AI exclusively and some that play with others exclusively, but there is a significant number of players that decide on a regular basis whether to use a PuG or AI. Seven heroes impacts more than those that use AI exclusively, such as yourself.

I have no idea where you get "drops are better with live people". I would wholeheartedly support a change to make this happen (i.e. giving incentives to play with other people), but this does not currently exist in the game.

Wow, you just answered your question yourself

It's no longer a real question 'if' A-net will do this, because they said no
The question 'why not' has also been answered by them (not satisfying for some) and several people in the at least 3 threads here on guru on this topic have been given additional reasons why not. Again, not everyone is satisfied because they just want more heroes. Reasoning does not help in arguments with the newly converted members of the 7-hero religion.
They only spill their arguments like 'PuG is already broken', 'it does not hurt anyone', 'I cannot play the game they way I want' without considering the arguments of people that have questions on 7 heroes.
People in my guild confirmed every place in GW, including HM is playable with H&H, except those without henchmen in outposts (guess what, those were intended for human parties...).

Let me tell you one thing.
I cannot play the way I want either.
I would be able to team up with 8 humans all the time.
But when I want to, I have to wait very long or arrange something outside the game (sign-ups at general forums, guild forum or alliance forum).

This is something that has been broken a very long time, has a direct relationship to the intentions of the designers (social aspect of the game) and does benefit the community more than converting the game to a solo-game!
A-net fixed part of it with the party window.
However, this does only work for people in a certain outpost.

So I request better scheduling and teaming mechanics for both guild/alliance/friend teams and PuGs.

Implementing this would not hurt the solo-player.
It would not change the way they play.
But, opposed to the 7-heroes thing, it would fix a real problem in the game.
And it is something that A-net thinks is important.

Now tell me, why should A-net dedicate resources to a gimmic 'would like' and not fix a problem?

There's really no end to your desire to screw people that don't play the way you play, is there? If you're so intent on being rid of people that like to solo, if their presence (despite having no impact on you at all) is so offensive, go play a game that doesn't allow it and leave us alone.

I mean, you don't see SP gamers arguing that there should be a limit on the number of humans in a party, or that groups with more people (since the game's easier that way) should get lesser drops. I don't care how you play, I don't want to screw up the game for you, why are you so intent on trying to ruin it for me?

If I could have 7 heroes I would attempt to surround myself with hot buxom babes o.O

Jora...
Xandra...
Hayda...
Gwen...
Livia...
Tahlkora...
Zenmai...

Mmm yes. My dream orgy....err...team.

If they need to remake one it's tahlkora >.> is it just me or are the GW:EN chicks much more.... well they got... more ... "assets"?

I'd second that, actually. As the game ages, there need to be mechanisms for both groups (PUGgers and limited MP/SP players) to be able to play with a dwindling supply of other gamers and ever-increasing challenges. Your request would help PUGgers as well as those of us that like to MP with friends but have trouble coordinating schedules. 7 heroes would help fill the time gaps between those scheduled games and allow us to play SP in most every area of the game. I tend to see them as complementary requests, for all that you clearly don't.

Wait, did you say Gwen is hot?

They're ugly as hell, even Danika is more "sexable" than her, even though she does have an irritating voice (not as bad as Gwen's). At least she doesn't have a face like a welder's bench.

Hmm, come to think of it they both do...

i would to have 7 heros at a time. imagine all the builds you can try without the logistical nightmares. imageine being able to have an all paragon team, anytime, anywhere.

but that would involve anet giving us heros that can take up any primary profession..

I think if we could use 7 heroes it would "gently encourage" me to buy GWEN.
As it is, I see no reason to have 30ish heroes if you can only use three.

I only h/h, and before heroes came out I strictly henched. I had a few early experiences with pugs and I'm finished playing this game with people. If that means I can't do a few high-lvl missions because the henchies are gimped then oh, well.
Anet CAN'T force me to pug. I play to have fun, and I don't care about "socializing" with other people.

It does solve a problem (not being able to fully customize their team) but for the solo player. Better scheduling solves a different problem (not being able to find other people to play with) for the team player. But instead of solving that second problem, it's apparently easier to put limitations on the solo player (can only customize 32 skills instead of 64 in a team, only use 3 PvE only skills instead of 24) instead.

So not only are the current limitations on solo play not enough already, you would introduce even more of them and actively discourage people from solo play?

And you are saying that you can't play GW:EN with the current H+H party?
How about you get your facts straight.

Umm, no, he's not saying that at all, nor anything remotely like that. Read before criticizing. He's saying more heroes might be an incentive to buy the expansion if they were actually good for anything, but since NF already has a bunch, and since we can only use 3, there's really no point.

It's actually even worse than that. In most circumstances, you're going to be running a hero monk and a hero MM. That means one hero slot has a choice of 3 monks (if you have NF and GWEN), one slot has a choice of 3 necros, and the other has a choice of nineteen heros. The vast, vast majority of those heroes will never be used on a given character, as a result. I'm honestly not sure why Anet bothered to give us so many if we're not going to be allowed to use them. Quite the waste of effort, really.

I think that Mineria and the_jos attittudes nicely outlined why H/H is preferable to PUGing with general public.

Keep in mind that a lot of people don't just h/h because it's easier, they h/h because of all the awful attitudes that they run into.

3 heroes, 7 heroes, no heroes, I won't be PUGing. Sorry, but I've been called too many crude, offensive and home-hitting names to want to ever go back.

Hey Vinraith..
Does your alliance have room for our Guild? The Legion of Lost Rulers
I would like to add my guild to yours, since we share the same feelings on some issues.
Mabe we can get an alliance together that support 7/8 Hero Parties.
what do ya think?

One reason I would like to see at least 5-7 hero's usable is, more varity. As mentioned before, you really need to use your hero's to pickup the slack with the henchmen, wich means taking 1 monk, and for me 2 henchmen monks, then I'm down to two hero's and since your serverly limited in choices for henchmen, support hero's are really out because the henchmen are just not going to cut it for damage dealing leaving you weakened and in some areas nearly impossible to kill, so your really stuck taking damage dealers for youer hero's. wich means a good chunk never get used.

With 7 hero's you can have 2-3 good monks, a few damage dealers, along with some support chars, maybe some chars that deal with weakening the enemies, or interupting them. More hero's means you can actually try some different party formations.

It wasn't criticism, more a remark that we shouldn't forget an important fact.
He is saying, that he can't do some high level missions with henchmen because they are bad.
How come then, that every mission where you can take henchmen, can successfully be done with them?

You are right stating that there is a bunch of heroes and we can only use 3.
Then take a look at sets and weapons, and compare the aspect of skins.
Since you don't get any better stats, only the skin can be chosen.
So maybe the point is, that you can pick those hero pixels that you like the best?

What attitude if I may ask?
Did you ever see me call anyone bad names?
You wont even see me do so in game, neither am I the player that insults other because they "don't have the right build".
As long as people are not going afk or rage-quiting when I'm in a pug, I'm happy.
Since I know if we don't make it, I can always make it later with heroes and henches anyway.
But believe me I got a lot of patience.
Reason why I even bother to get into this discussion, is that I honestly think it will break the game.
The line between PvE balancing a mmo/rpg or what you like to call it, is very thin.
If it gets to hard few will try to play it, if it gets to easy many will have nothing left to do, and leave to find something else.

Plus that I pinned out some points regarding the advantage from this idea, for a player with lots of time and the disadvantage for a player with little time.
How would you make it fair for both?

Another deal with 7 heroes controlled by 1 player will be the clutter of flags and skill bars.
I think the current 3 huge none resizeable hero windows are bad enough as they are.

Id rather see, that the hero/henchmen AI bugs get fixed, as well as improve some parts of the AI, and maybe give them some adjustments on their skill bars.
Fix that first, and then we can continue talking about those 7 heroes.

Did it occur to anyone that having to manage 8 skill bars and 7 flag would be very taxing,and a great way to teach players how to co-ordinate in game. Trying this a few times just might make people WANT to pug.

I know of many many combos I'd love to try, but with Heros its just not possible, they don't use the skills in the order or when I want and managing them can be tiersome. But I still take them over live people most of the time simply because they let me play the game the way I want to.

Aslo the skill layout of the Hench sometimes force what heros I can take. Ive had to live short 1 monk on several occasions when I wish to bring a Rit with Brutal weapon as the protect hench loves to cast enchants that negate it.

We dont want better Henchmen.
We want to use the Hero's that we spent the time to unlock, equip, upgrade their armors, and play builds that we want them to play.
You cant do that with Henchmen.

I like to play my Rit, my paragon, my mesmer.
Most Pug Groups on elite missions tell me srry, your class isnt needed for this mission.
Unless you commit to the
Obs Stance Tank
4 Nukers
BIP necro
Healer
Bonder
Alot of this game isnt playable by other characters...
Who says so?
I would at least like to be able to make Failed attempts to prove otherwise.

Yes, I have been harsh in my post #345.
Does that have to do with my attitude? Yes.

Why?
Because people are taking subjective views and post them as objective when arguing on this subject.

The main points on those are:
- We must have them, it's impossible to do HM without full hero parties.
This argument is not true, it is possible to do every HM thing in areas with Hench. Is it hard? Yes. Too hard? In some places probably Yes. Impossible? No.

- I cannot play Elite areas (and I paid for those).
Looks like a valid argument but is broken because those elite areas are intended to be played with other humans (hence the lack of henchmen)
You paid for content to be played the way the designers intended it.
The recent nerfs of Slaver's and HoS show that perfect. The game was not working as intended.

Other arguments fall almost all in the "don't hurt anyone, don't change PuGs".
Perfectly valid statements from the view of a solo-player.
Not from the perspective of the PuG player.
However, I tried to avoid the PuG argument as much as possible, since it's a different subject and brings too much points of argument in the discussion.
The discussion can be helt without touching the PuG subject.

Let's take a look look at the posting by ChaoticCoyote,#247
Nr 1-3, 7 mainly target teaming up, that's PuG or similar, won't touch that (I know it's a bit more than that).
Nr 4 deals on equipping heroes. However, only a handfull will ever see use. There is no point in equipping the rest then...
Nr 5 deals with new game strategy. True, but only from the solo-player perspective.
Nr 6 is on the 'possible potential'. H&H get the job done, comparing to what is possible with full hero teams is talking about 'nice to have'.
Sure you can do more with more heroes, just like my guild team can do more than you with 7 heroes and just like [eE] can do more than my guild team.
Nr 8 deals with the interface. This will indeed not be broken when the additional heroes are handled as additional henchmen.
However, if hench are not good enough, we need better hench. No, you don't want that because of point 4, equipping heroes.
However, you are forgetting about the players that don't have heroes. They should be able to play the same thing as you, only harder perhaps.
They paid for the content (proph and/or factions), so they should be able to play all, right?
Nr 9, teaming up with human with bad heroes
Sounds good, however, it would not benefit the player with the bad heroes as much as the one with the good heroes.
Why? Because the bad heroes won't be used and will not get maxed if they are not level 20. Skills also won't appear like magic on bad heroes.
The player with the bad heroes still has to invest in them.
It's also very possible that someone demands to use his heroes only because they are uber leet and the rest just sucks.
Which brings us to the PuG which I wanted to avoid.

Well, I can observe it as two requests, however, there is this thing called resource problem (as already mentioned slightly in the original post).
A-net has X programmers/designers working on Y things.
What is happening here is that people are demanding a change for something that in my opinion is nothing more than a 'nice to have' feature (I know opinions differ on this).
When A-net dedicates resources to A, they have to stop working on B or cannot start working on C.

Now we have the bugs on various forums. Those would be priority 1
Then we have the broken parts of the game. Those would be priority 2
Then we have the 'nice to have' features. Priority 3

You know my opinion on the 7 heroes topic and a teaming/scheduling feature.