Should heroes be able to use PvE-skills?

The game was silly already, you were just being artificially gimped in the name of balancing it vs PUGs.

You think the game is silly with 7 heroes?

Ever did shards of orr or vlox falls with 8 good players?

It is ridiculous how easy that is.

Good enough as compared to perfect?

The problem with (some) pve only skills is its power.

Stuff like speed clears are ridiculously overpowered.

Yet if Anet decided to nerf something essential for that type of play, we have tons of QQs.

If Anet is interested it can re-balance the game now that it is splitting skills for PvP/PvE and make teams focus less on damage. Asura Scan, BuH and AoHM were good steps on that direction.

What would mean having 7 heroes with pve only skills?

FoW HM taking 1 hour instead of 2 hours? DoA NM taking 2 hours instead of 4?

Teams are still faster than that.

It might never happen, but there is no good reason not to.

"Balance", "people stop pugging", "it would make the game too easy", all arguments with no substance.

8 party members with arcane echo and ebon assassin support might be a bit much

Then the problem is Ebon Vanguard support, and not heroes using it...

7 hero is easy enough as it is. Why buff it more?

People seem to be forgetting that Guild Wars was designed to be a SOCIAL GAME. It's completely reasonable to keep some incentives for actual team play.

Besides, this encourages some small degree of actual build creativity.

24 PvE skills would just be silly. The reason PvE skills were made was to be a crutch to players that had to put up with poor H/H skills and AI they were horribly weak for some end game areas. 3 PvE skills total, with your heroes being allowed to take one as long as you have less then 3, would be OK.

See: http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/a...t10472173.html

definitely against allowing heroes to use PvE skills. I hate PvE skills anyway, and think that anything as overpowered as them shouldn't have been included in the first place.

It is social - I can chat it up as much as I want in any populated town or outpost. I don't see any rule book that says an MMO must force you to play with other people to achieve maximum benefit. They may have started out as complete multi-player games, but there's no reason that they can evolve like everything else and offer complete and maximum benefits for those who like to play solo.

But in answer to the OP. No, I don't think the basic Heroes need to use PvE only skills. I would like to see them have at least one unique and useful benefit each that would make taking something other than the standard formation interesting. We spend a good amount of time redeeming Jora, so she can once again "become the bear." But, she ends up never having this ability. That just really ruins the story and emmersion factor for me.

However, I do think that Mercenary Heroes should be allowed to use the PvE skills that the parent character has unlocked. Right now, I don't see any real benefit or drive to use Mercenary Heroes, though I always thought it would be nice to be able to have my characters adventure with each other. I just think there hasn't been enough implemented for the MH to make it worth the cost at this point. The MH should come fully equipped as the parent character, runes and all - just make none of the stuff salvagable to prevent exploits. If you want to change the build, then delete the MH, respec the parent, and re-register.

Hanok

/notsigned - silly thread award.

Geesh - you want more PVE skills in the group then you go get more people.

End of - goodnight.

I would /Signed this....

IF Anet implement some sort of significant grouping incentives and group reward. Never mind pugs, even my guild/alliance is getting affected...way fewer people wants to do anything other than "broken" speed clears as a guild anymore. I don't blame them...why have a balanced guild group run when I could use 7 heroes and be half way through a ZM/ZB/ZV before my guildies even come. Once someone figure some sort of single player DoA hero build that could do a full run in about 1.75 hours I can imagine the oh so mighty Glaiveway fall as well.

The #1 most overpowered thing about PvE skills are NOT the numbers, but the fact that they're profession-less.

You don't need warrior w/ tactics or a paragon w/ command shouts for defensive party wide buffs anymore. That's now condensed to a single skill that every profession can use.

Every profession being viable at everything is stupid. PvE skills are essentially tertiary/quaternary professions on a character. Keep the last scraps of GW profession uniqueness intact.

That's the one thing I'm trying to abolish with this suggestion. Anet said themselves that they do not like the fact that certain professions have keyskills and are mandatory in certain groups. (Such as Monks) That's the intire reason they're removing Monks from GW2 so that you're not forced to look for that last profession hours on end.

Right now if you wanna clear DoA or any elite area with friends (Read: not some professional PvE guild team) and you don't have anyone with a paragon (And you can kid all you want, but a SY paragon is pretty much mandatory for HM groups) or even some sort of broken SF tank or heck for arguement's sake there's simply noone willing to play such boring bars (And a game should be fun, right?) I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to take a Paragon hero to do that job for us.

And people keep bringing up this would break PvE and make pugging completely obsolete:

-That's exactly what people were saying before NF when 3 hero teams were announced.

-That's exactly what people were saying really strong PvE skills were anounced with GWEN.

-That's exactly what people said when "7 hero threads" popped up.

For some reason, every update seems to completely break PvE for the average Riverside Inn poster, yet every next update seems to completely break it again. (As if the previous update dind't happen)

We've come a long way from still being able to say "this would kill PvE" or "this would make PvE too easy".

If you look at practical situation, all the past "OOH NOES THE SKY IS FALLING DOWN"-updates the community oh-so-feared did have much less individual impact on the game than predicted.

I would again like to notice I'm aware that PvE skills are broken., and clearly so are you guys. But how is the fact that PvE skills are broken related to the fact heroes shouldn't be able to use them? Doesn't the problem rather lie in those PvE skills rather than heroes being able to use?

For that matter, if heroes were able to use these skills, and people would effectively take heroes over people on these bars, doesn't that essentially mean that people simply want to play with heroes rather than other people? (So I fail to see what the problem is...)

And there's no need to cry wolf over that this would completely destroy SC and high-end teams. That is utter nonsense, and you guys know it. I would love to see a single player micro a couple of shadow form sins, flagging them radar ranges away on the map, while at the same time controlling all the damage dealers and managing his own bar.

With maybe the exception of necrosis getting used on every discord bar, the impact of this change wouldn't be as severe as the impact of previous updates. (3 heroes, PvE skills, 7 heroes)

If forcing all your heroes to take YMLaD, echo EVAS or any redicilous combo posted in this thread was so redicilouslyzomgomgwtfbroken overpowered, people would be forming teams like that to farm DoA and other elite areas. You're all severly overestimating the capabilities of PvE skills (As opposed to skills such as Panic, SS, Splinter, SoH, Scythes, SF, ...) aswell as heroes ability to use those skills. (Arcaning echoing something for example will be a bitch trying to micro it on 7 heroes every 20 seconds.)

I don't have a problem, per se, with the suggestion.
I would like to see the PvE skills toned down a bit if they did.

But where do you draw the line, Killed you man?

Why limit us to 3 PvE skills? Why not 8?
Why not have con sets readily available?
Why not just warp us to the end chest, give us a insta-kill win button?

Silly, right?

I guess what you should ask is: Should the game offer challenge or should the players define their own challenge?

-i

3 PvE skills because it's the human limit. Wether or not I agree with this number is not up to me, that's up to Anet. The issue at hand here isn't how many PvE skills one can take, it's about giving heroes the same capabilities as human players. (skills-wise)
If it were up to me, there'd be no PvE skills alltogether and these elite areas would get toned down a bit (because the only way to beat them is to rely on gimmicks such as PvE skills).

The problem with elite areas in GW is that they aren't hard, they're just build wars. Hard would imply a skilled player could beat them with a good build. The truth, however, is that you need a very specific build, and the skill of the player hardly matters. (Look at Glaiveways, there's people playing it who are completely clueless to the extend where you wonder if they ever played Guild Wars before in their life, yet they still win cuz the build is so effective)

If you have the best PvE guild attempt DoA without having to rely on broken skills (SF, SY, TNTF, ...) you'll find that they wipe redicilously fast, whereas monkeys could farm that same area with the "right" build.

As such, Anet buffed elite Areas in such an inpractical way (They dind't make them harder, they just made them impossible to beat for casual teams/builds, and easy for gimmicks) the only option you have is to resort to PvE skills, unless offcourse you abuse flaws in the area itself. (So again, beating DoA with 7 heroes without PvE skills doesn't mean it doable, it only means Panic and other skills are really effective in abusing AI)

And consets already are readily available, but again, what has this got to do with this issue?

As for the teleport to endchest and button joke:

Again, what has this got to do with the issue at hand here? Players are already farming the format in such a way. How will allowing players to use heroes, which will do it alot more slowly, change things for the worse?

You're targetting the wrong aspect of my suggestion. What you're claiming is that consets, PvE skills and whatnot else are overpowered. I agree with you on that one (I've already said this 10 times, I'm starting to think people are blind ), however how does heroes being able to use these skills change anything? All the flaws you pointed out are flaws within the elite areas, PvE skills and consets, not with 7 heroes being able to use PvE skills.

The reason for my previous post is to suggest that you are making the same mistake Anet made: power creep.

Addition thru subtraction. I agree with everything you wrote, I think you make a compelling argument, but the solution is to tear down the gimmicks of the game, not add to them.

-i

Which is what I suggested. Tone down PvE skills, but allow heroes to bring them.

I dunno about you, but I want my MMO (or CORPG, whatever you want to call it, just let's not open that stupid semantics argument) to be something more than a singleplayer game with a chatroom.

Still:

I completely agree with this. Giving each of the heroes something special would be really cool and encourage people to be more creative.

Which was also in my post

You must have added this later because it wasn't in your OP. Either way, we agree.

Regardless, the strength in heros is finding what the AI can do well. I've never cared enough to find those synergies, so I would offer that finding those skill sets (ie. sabway) that complement the AI is stronger than allowing the PvE skills, although, heros may be able to handle them.

-i

My take on this:

a) allow heroes & mercenaries to use PvE skills, if:

- there is limit of only one PvE skill per skillbar, be it player or hero/mercenary
- PvE skills are tweaked accordingly - personally, I'd use them as an opportunity to introduce niche skills, which partially cover particular profession's weakness (for instance, Ranger could get a preparation boosting it's melee attacks, rather than ranged ones, to introduce a whole new variety of viable melee rangers/melee beastmasters)
- if necessary, PvE skills limited to primary profession's choice (no PvE skills from secondaries) ---> advantage of this is that a certain PvE skill can be made exclusively in mind with particular profession's needs, rather than possible exploits/loopholes when used by another profession
- PvE skills are still entirely optional and not necessary for a decent build, because they don't introduce a 'meta' powercreep making them a requirement (especially painful for professions with compressed bars, like Assassins, Dervishes and Paragons)

OR

b) leave the things as they are

Which is all well and good. But then why should single-player games include Multi-player versions or options? The games that I enjoy the most are the ones that give me the most options in which to play them. That's why I have been playing GW for a dedicated time longer than any of the dozens of other games sitting my 5-shelf bookcase. I can play it in SP mode if I like (which is my preferred playstyle), or in MMO mode when I have a hankering for some fellowship. I just wish that the high end areas were more SP friendly than they are now.



Exactly, but it would also bring some additional strategy to the mix instead of the "bring the Heroes whose skin you like more" routine (which the Mercenaries have just taken to the next level). If each Hero would bring something different to the table, then I would actually have a reason to bring Margrid or Pyre over Jin in a particular area, other than just because she's the first one of the three in the drop-down.

Hanok

no. or people will just macro all heroes and SC.

Merc heroes should be able, regular heroes no, if you want me to pay for Merc heroes then they should be allowed to use PvE skills, otherwise it's a waste of money getting MH....

I found a game I think you'd like.

so rich people have even better advantage?

Love when people toss around that "rich" word. I believe most people have very little understanding of the term "rich" and how it applies to the amount of money you can spend on this game.

You don't have to be "rich" to afford merc heroes. You DO, however, have to be irresponsible with your money.

Sure, sounds like fun.

Hero 1 brings Summon Naga Shaman
Hero 2 brings Summon Mursaat
Hero 3 brings Summon Ruby Djinn
Hero 4 brings Summon Ice Imp
Hero 5, 6 and 7 bring Ebon Vanguard Assassin Support.

I was about to post "wah... you noob! you can only have one Asura Summons at a time... wah....."; but that's incorrect....

I say yes.

But then, I was arguing for seven heroes when people claimed simply having seven heroes would be a balance issue, so, you know... I don't believe the myth that heroes being equal to players is a bad thing.

No, heroes shouldn't be able to use PvE skills.

I've seen this kind of reasoning alot. It's staggering that people want Anet to charge for a serious in-game advantage.

What? Nobody should be able to have pve skills: they are insanely OP along with a bunch of elite skills. Or they should all be nerfed to oblivion and even then your heroes shouldn't be able to use them because there has to be a balance that makes a godly hero~=semi-noob player.

They've already been doing that for years:

Spend $50-$150 (original retail prices) for campaigns and expansion, unlocking all skills for PvE, including PvE only skills. Find 7 other people who did same. Own every area of the game.

Having mercs able to use PvE only skills based on the same restrictions that players operate under isn't any more of an advantage than players who can afford more than one campaign already have. The only difference is that Heroes will never be more advantageous than real players due to the AI factor.

Hanok

In one case you get a full campaign, piles of skills, professions, character slots, a pvp mode, on top of skills, which came out at most once every 6 months.

In the other you pay roughly the same price for the small advantage of using PvE skills on your heroes. No actual additional content. And there's no theoretical limit on how often they can keep pushing out these small buyable advantages, and not much of a restraint on price since anyone wanting to clear zones efficiently will either pay up or quit the game in disgust.

There are alot of games out there with cash shops that do offer buyable advantages to players, and alot of westerners are turned off to that, being able to outspend your way past other people. Which is why Anet said they want to keep the cash shop to cosmetic or convenience items. Microtransactions are typically poor value per content, so if people feel obliged to pay just to keep up, it's an issue. Even for games that do let you buy advantages in a cash shop, many provide a way to grind for the same things in-game, which this proposal certainly does not.

No, No, No, No, No, No, No.
7 heroes are already roflstomplolboomsplashlmfaocopter easy. PvE skills would make them even more roflstomp....

Even though I cant lie, it would be fun, it would not be good for the game which is already (too) easy.

Definately not. No in-game advantage for cash. OK they made a mistake introduning the Mercs in the first place but they should not compound the mistake like this.

Why do people want the game easier all the time?

I prefer to keep some semblance of balance as I will not be moving to GW2. If they'd kept the limit to 3 heros, I might have been willing to accept one PvE skill per hero. But even without PvE's having 7 heros with fairly good builds seems to be more powerful than 3 with PvE's.

Agree with the above.

I love the fact that I can use 7 hero's now...but there has to be a difference
between a human pug instead of hero's so.. No PvE skills for hero's

The only way I could see it make sense would be ONE pve skill for regular heroes, and maybe possibly if they were feeling particularly snazzy, 2 or 3 for mercs.

I didn't say that the current cost was worth the return, only simply that you don't really get any advantage at as since any player can form a team of all human players, which generally beats out AI companions any day. So even with PvE skills added, an all human party has more advantage over a mostly AI party. All the Mercs (with PvE) would do, would be to bring the playing field closer to level (but not quite level).

Why is the game so easy to begin with? Because an all human party makes it that way. An all human party will always have an easier time (generally speaking) than a 7 hero party, so see above.

And who will you play with when the majority of the population moves to GW2? One of the points (which I haven't seen mentioned yet) of allowing Mercs to use PvE skills will be allow those of us who will still be playing GW1 regularly the opportunity to do so without being gimped because there will be a decided lack of human players to party with. So would you rather see zones dumbed down further to accommodate the drop in population, or would you rather see the Mercs as a viable replacement to the lack of population?

Hanok

How will I put this..

No.

It's called monster skills, and they are there to make some monsters more challenging to players. Durr..

Anyway, no, no, no, no, no. The game has become so easy it's kind of embarassing. Add PvE skills to the heroes and you should never fail anywhere, ever again. Why not give people the ability to have 3 or 4 professions? Or give heroes 2 Elite skills.

Also, @ this: lol? What? Anet already did something they vowed against ever doing: giving people the ability to pay for in game advantages. Some debate it, but we all know it's true. You want to make it even worse? Gg.