Upcoming GW:B Work

They're not worth anything. Go try to sell your account on ebay, nobody will care. Things depreciate, especially videogames. Gamestop makes a killing on that fact.

It's time to give the game to the casuals. It's dead anyway, let them play content that they can't with empty outposts and no assistance. The game series is about being "for" every player, not for the elite.

No.

A 7-heroes party is just as capable (that is, being able to execute a specified course of action) as a full-human team. If anything, the difference is in efficiency, thanks to some prerogatives of human parties (be it human intelligence, coordination or simply PvE skills). Again, all you can do PvE-wise, you could do with a full-hero setup, maybe slower, maybe lacking access to some gimmick, but it's a fact you could do it. You can't do speed clears, yet you could potentially just clear the area, only slower. SCs don't really qualify as "playing the game" to me anyway, but that has nothing to do with this thread.

Sorry, capability ≠ efficience. I'm often accused of arguing semantics. Well, I wouldn't, if people wouldn't misuse terms and definitions that frequently.

pugs being bad, i agree
there's something else i forgot, its when you said "failing is frustrating"

if people help/join, and the group fails, alot of times they will leave, as they have done it already

not forgetting about that i saw alot of people answering a bad way, IMO
like:
question: can you help with the wilds + bonus?
answer: sry, already done it

i had this is alot of guiolds i joined, only the good ones died, and the good people left, except for a few (a few compared to some years ago)

please not paying for something like that, not all people have big wallets
and giving it for free will make people much happier, and dont forget the ones who become angry because they gotta pay for something happening ingame... i mean, we didnt have to pay for WiK
(i would feel bad if i gotta pay for that)

plz dont use the "no monthly fees" part as an excuse, i'm not comparing GW to any other MMO

besides, if they do it, alot of people will be happy to play GW again, and i'm sure at least half of em will buy more stuff in the ingame store to have more fun, like character slots or such

As much as I enjoy not paying for things, I would enjoy more frequent, better, constant Guild Wars 1 updates and support a lot more.

Well, a spirit spammer solo would be just as capable as a full human team by those standards. Doing the same thing only slower is not the same as "just as capable." Thats like saying taking a random pug group with random builds into a dungeon is the same as a SC.

If we had 7 heros, the full player SC/Team and farm builds would be the same. And thats what most people complain about when some new imba build steamrolls through content. Yeah, some new 7 hero build may come along thats really effective, but it wont effect most players being able to get groups in already puggable areas(DoA, UW, PvP etc.).

The only content I could forsee 7 heros improving on is Vanquishing/Protector title type gameplay. Those are the areas where its toughest to get a pug group anyway. Other than that, solo players who H&H everything anyway would get a nice bonus.

7 heros would be less effective than 2 players and 6 heroes(which we already have). You dont have as many PvE skills and heros are pretty dumb. Sure, heros have lightning reflexes with skill use, but they arent able to use that advantage in an intelligent way.

You are wrong. Heroes just dont have many basic human capabilities or efficiencies.

Heroes cannot see the wall infront of them so if you have ever used a spear chunker hero, you would notice that if the target is behind an obstacle he will keep hitting the wall instead of the target. They have no sense of line of sight. Heroes also run out of AoE damage a lot later than human players, heroes can also kill themselves when they have empathy, spiteful spirit or other punishment hexes cast on them.

Doing a SC slower just means it is weaker. In fact, just try to name ANY area that heroes can clear faster than a souped up human team with pve skills because there is none.

Furthermore, there are still many elite areas in the game that are a lot more difficult to clear with heroes than it is with humans. Try doing a full run of HM DoA with heroes.

You don't know the definition of "capability".

capable [ˈkeɪpəbəl]
adj
1. having ability
2. (postpositive; foll by of) able or having the skill (to do something)
3. being able to complete a task or execute a specific course of action.

can -> be able to -> (cap)ability

Heroes are not incapable, heroes are inefficient when compared to humans at accomplishing certain tasks. That makes them rather less competent than incapable.

Competence ≠ Capability

A hero not detecting a wall is not incapable. Their deficiency influences the overall performance of the team, but there's no doubt that you can just do what you're doing with a few little tricks. If you're using a build a hero can't manage properly and you don't bother to place that hero on the field or micromanage its skills, it's you hindering your team, but the team could potentially do the job. Nothing prevents it. The whole game is designed to be playable with AI support.

Furthermore, you're missing a very important point: 1:8 proportion.

Performance-wise, a 7-heroes team can't touch a full-human party - assuming the human party has enough competence and coordination to do well - , that's undebatable. The huge difference is that the loss in terms of performance is rather negligible, when you shave off the human presence by 1:8. Performance doesn't degrade by 1:8 (a balanced team can clear the UW in 3 hours, I really doubt it would take 24 hours for a hero team)

This is the point we were discussing. Let's say heroes can do, like, what, 60% of what a human party can do in terms of performance, because of their faults and the lack of PvE skills or whatever. That's achieved by just ONE person instead of EIGHT.

Would that be powerful? Likely so, when compared to the most obvious alternatives to this, that are not full-human parties but rather H/H parties and PuGs.
Would that be "overpowered"? Some people think so and so oppose to the implementation, I do not. But comparing performances of a full-human team isn't that significant as an argument against it.

It is starting to sound like you are arguing sematics. Fine, let me put it this way to you: "A hero is incapable of detecting line-of-sight".

I say again, no it is not negligible, there is a HUGE difference in performance between the best human team and the best heroes team. Even if it takes an hour or 2 hours more to clear UW, that is a HUGE difference. If you completed a marathon and come in an hour later than the top runner, that is not a negligible difference in performance, ok? And your whole debate of heroes must be 8 times worse than humans in order for it be considered a "significant" difference to you, is just ridiculous and obviously designed to skew facts to a large degree so as to support your failing point.

I agree with this I would pay for extra hero slots but more inline with $2.50 each and not $5.00 each. I think Anet should get something for creating what a large margin of players are asking for. Everything shouldn't be "FREE' geesh never saw so many tightwads.

i dont get why people want to pay, or do they just say it cuz they like to be nice to anet?

listen, buying something we're asking for, is asking for everything to be in ingame store
another problem is that alot of people cant get a creditcard, like myself
and i doubt anet wants to discriminate those people

why even starting on that subject? it wont be pretty if those who cant use creditcard/refuse to buy it leave the game as they gotta pay for it

if it would be a new expansion, then ok, cuz then we have much more, but every little thing having a price makes them look greedy and wont make others happy

note: not everyone is as rich as some of us

paying like 20 euro for 1 suggestion, which is a few years old, that'd be the day to quit GW for me, as i cant afford much, and i cant get creditcard as i have low income (i'm not allowed to get one with my income)

please anet, dont let me down with this

its not like they are losing alot of money, as the GW2 release will give em so much, and some people think they gotta pay alot of small extra's in GW2 if they do ask money for 7 hero teams

get real plz, think about everyone, not just your overgrown wallet

sry for this long post (is it?)

I am, since people started quoting me when I said hero can do pretty much everything a human team can do.

They can. They just can't do it as efficiently and have faults that must be looked into, but there's nothing they're inherently disabled to, expect PvE-only skills.

Still, heroes can be runed, equipped with weapons, have a fully customizable skill-bar, can attack, retreat, can launch spells, you name it. They are as close to a human player as it can get.

So, flag it correctly on the battle field, et voila, your party is now perfectly capable of doing its job as intended.

A lot of human players are incapable to place correctly on the battlefield as well.

Still not even comparable to the reduced "workforce" needed to achieve it. You can't deny that 7-heroes would hugely reduce the gap between H/H and 8-human teams. That reduction is deemed as excessive by some - not me, mind you - as it would give what is perceived as too much power to ONE SINGLE PLAYER.

I don't think that would pose a problem, but still, I don't see how comparing a ONE PLAYER SETUP to an EIGHT-PLAYERS SETUP to represent the former as much weaker than the latter is any significant. It's just stating the obvious, if anything.

My failing point, which is...?

Actually, I'm just questioning the relevance of an argument made on a comparison that's like comparing apples and oranges.

Actually here I only see people discarding a simple fact - 7-heroes party giving a huge boost to solo-players in terms of efficiency and capabilities - with an argument that makes no sense whatsoever. That is, who cares if 7-heroes parties are perceived as overpowered? Human parties are even more powerful!

So, wait, since detractors think 7-heroes would be overpowered and oppose to the implementation because of this, are you trying to say that 8-human parties are... even more overpowered... to contradict them? Oh man... What are people trying to prove here?

Do you feel it's entirely NORMAL to compare a ONE-PLAYER SETUP needing only ONE HUMAN PLAYER, to a EIGHT-PLAYERS SETUP?

Off course the latter is more efficient. It MUST be, since it requires EIGHT TIMES the people to work. Stating the obvious.

A comparison that makes sense is between other options for solo players, that is the occasional PuG and H/H.

EDIT - A single player would need to do the thinking for 8 characters. So, if you really insist supporting the idea by comparing it with human parties, you'd rather discuss the additional burden the fine-tuning and management (flagging, micromanagement, etc...) this supposedly "overpowered" full-heroes team would require to achieve comparably lower results.

Just comparing the final results is going nowhere.

Totally agree but never....EVER...shit on the bread and butter that is your fan base.Offer incentives yes but allowing 7 heroes.....now.....is a slap in the face to the core players and will wreck the economy.

Period.

It's a bad idea.

Seriously...get a clue.

MMO is based on economy .You have to have elite and set goals for players to attain to that are set in stone.If you can't comprehend the simple fact that MMO is pure capitalism your playing the wrong genre.

"Hey new MMO players....heres a million gold"

No.

War In Kryta. Having to accept low level henchmen is a joke, and don't anyone dare say to just HM it, like it's easier that way. It's not.

I'd be happy with even a 5-hero limit to cover the areas where henchmen are not up to par.

I hope they wont add possibility to add 7heros, it would completely kill Pugging!

and for 99% of things being doable with henchmen, why would they need tho?

Id say, Remove teh heros and add few new henchmens!


On side note. my 10.000th Post!!

Exactly.

Those arguing for seven heroes seem completely unable to even contemplate, let alone comprehend, the effect this would have on the game as a whole while also ignoring and cheapening the effort, timesink and commitment the vast majority of long time players have invested to attain in-game reward.

Please...stop playing GW and stop supporting a game breaking change that turns GW into Dragon Age for scrubs.

The logic of people seeing this as a good idea is baffling, and usually selfish.So you want a reward in one month that took a veteran player six plus months to attain, then sell your loot in spamadan safe in the knowledge you never had to interact with any other player?

Hardly rocket science guys.

Do you mind explaining how 7 heros will wreck the economy? Heros didnt wreck the economy when they were introduced, 2 players and 6 heros is acceptable? But, adding one more hero to your team is imba and will ruin the economy/game? I think people are giving heros way too much credit.

@Xiaquin
I thought of how 7 heros could benefit GW:B content after I posted, but thought my post was already long enough. And I agree.

Sidenote: People who like to Pug will always Pug and people that like to solo will always solo. If 7 heros is added, I wouldnt expect to see any changes in Pug availability.

lol

No offence but if you can't initially comprehend or foresee such an obvious and blatant outcome any explanation I could give is largely redundant.

Thus wasting time when you have to watch over them! It takes away attention from general strategy and co-ordination which a human team can proceed with.

We are talking about maximum capabililties and potential of a human team vs a heroes team here. Not your one-off bad luck with pugs.

Having 7 heroes would be balanced because a full human team generally takes longer to form than a 7 heroes team. BUT a full human team is A LOT stronger than a 7 heroes team so there are still pros and cons for both options.

Even with 7 heroes, I would still prefer a good human team, if I can find them because they more powerful, efficient, and capable. All you need is to learn how to make friends or join a good guild like I did. Beside many elite areas are still not suitable for a full heroes team to clear all because they are just too tough (e.g. DoA HM). This already shows the vast superiority of a human team vs a heroes team.

Fun fact: solo players, such as myself, either do stuff with h/h or don't do it at all. If it ain't h/h-able, I ain't doing it.
You think I'm going to get into a smelly pug full of bad players with even worse skillbars and no common sense because I can't do something? Think again. I never joined pugs. Not when there were only henches, not now when we have 3 heroes and I won't pug if they add 7 heroes. Simple?

Seems like it's easy to get 10k posts if you just randomly press keys.

lol, you're gonna have to try harder- talking silly stuff and going "everyone knows that, duhhhh" is funny and grants you cool points, but not credibility points.

Hohoho, this will be good.
First, who are, core players? People who started GW with the beta? Or maybe peeps who got Proph on day one?
Second, how it will be a slap to the face, hm?
And no, "it's obvious, i ain't gotta explain, lulz" isn't a valid argument.

My rebuttal was sound.

Cool points seems to be your off-topic prerogative.

Obvious.Time investment.

I gather your an advocate for the cheapening of that.

Ok.

I've 'invested' as of now 4k+ hours into this game, and am really not bothered if the economy got to hell, every new player would be given a free set of FoW armor plus three weapons of their choosing and if people would get a free mini upon every login. Oh, and +1 on any of their title track for pressing space once is in the same category.

It wouldn't diminish my own accomplishments 'back in the day' one bit for me.

Now, this is some argument:

- A person playing with 7 heroes would need to concentrate on the management of a whole team all by him/herself
- Dealing with the AI shortcomings slow things down and potentially expose the party to dangers
- The overall result is not competitive with a human party anyway

Much better than:

which is the comment that started it.

7 heroes and 8 humans are not comparable in any way. It's a single player setup - the best available, if they go ahead and implement it - compared to a 8-men setup, which is currently not "imba" at all, since its simply the game design at its finest.

How that could support the idea that 7-heroes are not "overpowered" tough is beyond me. "Overpowered" is not an absolute term, this implementation could well be "overpowered" from a single-player perspective, even tough globally not that competitive with a full-human setup.

Less absolutes, thanks: solo players would actually benefit from an undeniably stronger tool than before, a tool that is here being deemed as "overpowered" (again, for a single-player) by some detractors. Telling them that 8 humans are better is rather obvious and redundant, and doesn't really question their point in any way.

Superiority which was never, ever questioned.

Cool, that makes me a core player. I wouldn't be offended at all if AN gave us 7 heroes, on the contrary, I'd be happy.
So, nope, it wouldn't be a slap to the face, sorry.
Why am I not surprised you're not so skilful at gathering. See, I'm one of the people who doesn't like things like perma SF, speedclears, pre-nerf Ursan and other stuff that is as gimmicky as it can get. If anything, I'm for making things harder to achieve.
Swing and a miss from you, once again.

Fully cool and I respect that.

Others here, including myself, think otherwise.Accomplishment is subjective and I'm really in your camp.Got my gear, titles, blah, blah a while back.I'm more into game mechanics, specifically in an MMORPG outside personal interest.

Seven heroes is just a bad idea.I have yet to read an actual argument or opinion outside personal interest, disinterest, greed and/or laziness that legitimises such a change.

Edit:

Soz dude.I'd rather not.

Honestly, I use my other account to load up 3 Heroes and then exit game, so I can roll with 6 Heroes. I think a good amount of people already do this...

A good amount of people don't have two accounts.

Ah, so you are a champion, making sure other people can still have a sound experience of the game? Cool.

While some people here may want it for the extra speed and such, there are many, like myself, that want it because it would make the game more fun. This may fall under the "personal interest" section, but there is nothing wrong with asking for something that makes the game more fun.

Core player here but i seem to be missing my face slap, Did face slaps get nerfed ?

Sorry but thats a bullshit answer, either backup your statement or accept that your wrong. "I said so" is never sufficient proof

Besides its pretty obvious that any "economy" still around is pretty much wrecked into virtual extinction

Instead I didn't read anything from you here that isn't pure trolling, showing off, elitism without ever giving a decent explanation, because you're just too cool for it.
LOL laziness? Yay, now controlling 7 heroes is lazyness while having other people to share the work with is not at all. With this mentality you should solo everything (and i mean solo, 1 member party) beacuse otherway it means you're too lazy.
Personal interest? You mean you play this game to help a humanitarian association, instead?

I really hope they go through with adding more hero slots. Of course there's going to be people who will resort to copypasta PVX builds - there's no denying that. But adding the option for more heroes will definitely give players a huge area to play around with imaginative team builds that are tweaked to their choosing.

I've always been a bit upset that I went through a huge process of upgrading my heroes: armor remnants, insignias/+50 runes, non-collector 40/40 sets or maxed weapons, and character/role specific builds, only to be able to use three heroes at a time. I would personally love bringing in my curse-wide MOW, Pyre who loves to blind and give both Morgahn and I ridiculous amounts of adrenaline, or Gwen with her AR ignoring damage and interrupts, etc. But at the moment, they're just not optimized to replace one of my three primary heroes (Morgahn, Livia, and Olias) who I have used to run in HM and earn multiple titles. I don't like switching out one of my main primary heroes for another at the risk of affecting team synergy. Additional heroes would eliminate that problem while also encouraging team-build experimentation.

Hell, if more hero slots are added, I'd probably dust off my Sin, Dervish and Ele and give them some much needed attention that's usually spent on my Warrior.

all of the "core" players already left, theres no point in trying to please them anymore. 7 heroes isn't like a slap in the face because we've already been slapped in the face, kicked in the groin, and pushed to the ground. 7 heroes is more like a taunt saying "and don't get back up."

I am still here!

echo echo echo echo echo

Try me. Just use small words "so my head dont go boom."

Seriously though, if anyone can give me an example of how 7 heros will ruin the economy I would like to hear it.

Good point. How does ^this^ +1 hero break the game exactly? I have asked friends to drop off some heros for me when I vanquish before. Nobody complains about people already doing this. Why? Because its not a game breaker.

All updates that introduce new features in the past have made the game easier, whether you've wanted them to or not. These are craved by the vast majority of the community, core and not.

This will never change. If it upsets you that much, you can stop playing, and we will continue.

Having heroes is better than having henchman. A lot better. It will make a lot of things easier, which would give solo players the opportunity to play areas that would otherwise require a few other human players, or even a full human team. Take DoA for example. More people being able to play around in it whenever they want may cause certain gems to cost less, meaning that coffers and Tormented Weapons will also cost less. For players that farm in Human teams and plan to afford their high end things by selling Armbraces to other players, this is bad.

From my perspective, it's not that bad though. Here's why:

• For all buyers, this is good. It lets players with less money do more.
• It's okay if certain very expensive things become less expensive. "The Economy" is healthy when there is a lot of activity, not necessarily when prices are high.
• Full human fast farming and speed clear teams will still be faster due to PvE skills and certain gimmicks.
• It will increase interest in these areas as a whole, and allow more players to play more of the game.
• It will encourage people to play more in preparation for GW2, which is good for Anet.
• It may cause more players to join the game, causing more trading activity, actually helping the economy.
• Players may have to re-outfit their heroes, helping the economy a little.

I hope that clarifies why some people think it will hurt the economy, and also why they are wrong.

It will NOT have anywhere close to the effect on the economy as SCs do. Tbh it's effect if any would barely be noticable. Even though I don't think they are needed...there's really no legitimate reason not to have them.

honestly... at this point in the game, even if 7 hero teams were to have an effect on the economy (which it wont...) who the hell cares? The economy has already gone to hell, and I dont think it really matters what happens now. Besides... its just an in-game economy. Its not like it was ever a big deal anyway.

I don't understand comments like these. How has the economy gone to hell?

Gold and Plat still has real in-game value, many people can buy many things, especially max damage weapons or near-max mods for a very fair investment. Tons of people still will pay a lot for prestige items, and investing time usually gives fair returns to a diverse set of farming options.

How are you measuring the success of this economy? Are you measuring at all?

And about this, I havent personally Pugged since 2006 either, but the fact is. Everything is easyly soloable even now, why would it need to be more easyer. Id rather want things be soloable. But also Harder, for abit of challenge ¨.¨, nowadays there aint any challenge left..

My vote goes to extreme mode Seriously though, with the right team setup (SoS obiviously being part of that, imba's are nice too, discord on the side) a HM vanquish these days is even easier then normal mode used to be in prophecies. I could seriously use some hard stuff. Stuff you might fail a couple of times at. And people saying then just go HM with bad builds, that doesn't work. Its not the same. Because you know you can easily do it, and probably done it already. Its just not the same...

Must say 7 heroes leave me cold. It would be cool since they look better then most henchman so I can have a purely esthetic team, but for other then that, it would only be a minor benefit. I would like it the first week, after that, well you can guess.. Everyone starts screaming for new content again.

And that it will effect the economy so much? It leaves me completely cold tbh. The people it will mostly effect (people with 100miliongazilion ambraces) have enough money already, so I won't give a shit about them. And it would make items people wanted but could never affort a little bit more affortable, but the people who couldnt affort them in the first place, probably still cant. I really don't care.