Curse

Disco_Will_Not_Die · May 04, 2008, 03:41 AM // 03:41

When the first game came out, I had many times where PUGing just didn't cut it. I didn't play the game again until Heroes were released, and 99% of my characters are from Nightfalls solely because of the Heroes.

I do H/H in 99% of the areas, sometimes having to go with a human player to accomplish very complex tasks. I would love to have the ability to run 7 heroes.

Heroes make the game for me. I hope they are implemented in GW2, maybe even more than GW1.

Martin Alvito · May 04, 2008, 05:02 AM // 05:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

Unless your atempting to get Vanquishing and Guardian titles, then finding a pug can be a full days work...all in vaine too when one noob over agros causing a party wipe.

Has it occurred to you that you may be networking improperly? The vast majority of players that might be interested in clearing zone/farming faction/doing HM mission/etc. likely are NOT located in the town in question.

(good) Groups get put together from friends lists and guild rosters. You need to be associated with a group of people that wants to do the same stuff you do. If you need to improve your playskill/manner in order to get into a guild where people want to do what you want to do and are capable of executing it, or to make friends worth playing with...then you need to do that.

Wrath of m0o · May 04, 2008, 10:51 AM // 10:51

*News Flash*

7/8 Hero parties are Overpowered by 6 Ursans and 2 HB monks.

BlackSephir · May 04, 2008, 11:33 AM // 11:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wrath of m0o

*News Flash*

7/8 Hero parties are Overpowered by 6 Ursans and 2 HB monks.

But 7 heroes don't fit AN's vision of the game.
And only god knows what is this vision.

zwei2stein · May 04, 2008, 11:48 AM // 11:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSephir

But 7 heroes don't fit AN's vision of the game.
And only god knows what is this vision.

Based on recent evidence, its all about pack of noble Melursus numbingly shredding enemies while pair of listless clerics oversees them.

Crom The Pale · May 04, 2008, 11:48 AM // 11:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

Has it occurred to you that you may be networking improperly? The vast majority of players that might be interested in clearing zone/farming faction/doing HM mission/etc. likely are NOT located in the town in question.

(good) Groups get put together from friends lists and guild rosters. You need to be associated with a group of people that wants to do the same stuff you do. If you need to improve your playskill/manner in order to get into a guild where people want to do what you want to do and are capable of executing it, or to make friends worth playing with...then you need to do that.

Has it occurred to you that maybe I don't have time to network together 8 live people to do a 20 minute mission?

Some of us don't play for 4-6hours at a time, we just log on and get straight to the fighting then log off afterwards. Hard to imagine for some but its really true.

When I have time to kill I do use my guildies/friends, that often means setting up a time several days in advance or waiting 20-30minutes for them to finish what they are in the middle of when I log on.

Because of my work I rarely have a guarenteed time of day or even day of the week when I can log on to play. Often I just have 30-90minutes to kill so I log on and pick something to do. If there are people availible then great, if not I have to H/H and hope its not a waste of time.

Deleet · May 04, 2008, 01:08 PM // 13:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

Has it occurred to you that maybe I don't have time to network together 8 live people to do a 20 minute mission?

Some of us don't play for 4-6hours at a time, we just log on and get straight to the fighting then log off afterwards. Hard to imagine for some but its really true.

When I have time to kill I do use my guildies/friends, that often means setting up a time several days in advance or waiting 20-30minutes for them to finish what they are in the middle of when I log on.

Because of my work I rarely have a guarenteed time of day or even day of the week when I can log on to play. Often I just have 30-90minutes to kill so I log on and pick something to do. If there are people availible then great, if not I have to H/H and hope its not a waste of time.

Join a large PvE guild with 9 other large guilds in alliance. That should be plenty of players.

Crom The Pale · May 04, 2008, 01:52 PM // 13:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deleet

Join a large PvE guild with 9 other large guilds in alliance. That should be plenty of players.

Why should I be forced to leave the Guild I started 3years ago just because were a small group of friends?

Most of our experiances with Alliances have been less then fun.

Navaros · May 04, 2008, 02:10 PM // 14:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSephir

But 7 heroes don't fit AN's vision of the game.
And only god knows what is this vision.

It doesn't according to Gaile's anti-7-heroes statement. But it does according to the back of the original GW box which states something like, "Play with your friends or ours" and makes it clear that you are supposed be able to solo the game if you choose to. The GW box promotes soloing if you choose to, and doesn't have any statements about soloing being semi-gimped, like it is via only 3 Heroes. Granted Heroes weren't out at the time the box was made and the box calls henchmen "skillful". But the point is, if the box says you are intended to be able to choose to solo, they they shouldn't introduce arbitrary limits to Heroes that attempt to semi-gimp the ability to solo.

Anet trying to force people to PUG by gimping Heroes to 3 doesn't work anyhow. Those who hate to PUG are not going to ever PUG because of the 3 Hero limit. All the limit does is tick them off by making them have to use 4 incompetently-equipped henchmen along with 3 Heroes. Which while that is extremely annoying, they are still 10 000x better and less annoying than PUGs. The 3 Hero limit accomplishes nothing in terms of "promoting social play" as per the official "reason" according to "Anet's vision". Those who hate PUGs are never going to PUG, not because of the 3 Hero limit, not because of anything. Period. So might as well make everyone happy by putting in the ability to use 7 Heroes instead of causing needless frustration & aggravation with the silly limit that accomplishes nothing, other than those bad feelings in the player.

Mewcatus · May 04, 2008, 02:33 PM // 14:33

At this point, I honestly believe that 7-Heroes will come out eventually, just that given that it is really a radical change which might change how GW is played and percieved, the idea is being placed on the backbench, until:

1. GW2 comes out, becomes a major hit. In this case, to keep GW1 sales up, with that HoM thing, 7 heroes might be introduced to get encourage players to back one title, and accomplish some things before going to GW 2.

or

2. GW2 comes out, and fails miserably for one reason OR anothing, maybe competetive market or just plain bad gameplay. In which case, releasing 7 heroes in GW 1, while they iron out the kinks the GW 2, would give them a large window of opportunity to help minimise the impacts.

The above 2 scenarios are NOT the only reasons why, but probably is the most realistic ones on why Anet has not decided to release it. Keeping 7 Heroes back as a fail safe net is a corporate strategy, and from Anet's point of view, much better set for a "rainy" day, so to speak.

ChaoticCoyote · May 04, 2008, 02:50 PM // 14:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

Has it occurred to you that you may be networking improperly?

I played 4000 hours of GW over 18 months. My friends list was quite mercurial; people disappeared form the game on a regular basis. The few good compatriots I found often moved to other games.

Now, you could just say thet I'm no good at making friends...

...and I would point out my 400-person-strong WoW guild, 90% of whom are adults, and many of whom at over the age of 40 (like me). We do raiding, questing, leveling -- all good stuff. My WoW friends list is always full of active players, and I almost never have a problem finding a group.

A fluke of WoW? No -- because I've had the same experience in LotRO.

GW enforces a sense of incredible selfishness, because the only character progress is vanity items. Thus it attracts a large community of people who are more interested in appearances than substance.

I liked GW until they added Hard Mode, and then dumbed it down with Ursan and consumables... if you want to be social, you have to grind titles for cheat-like skills. And solo play is broken by ANet's idiotic refusal to implement full-hero parties. They created a poor social environment, and then try to force us to play there.

No thanks.

Oh, I still play GW from time to time. I jump in on my ranger, and go solo (no heroes or henches) hunting, just for the fun of it. But in terms of socialization -- I'd rather play with heroes who don't insult me for my build or insist that I spend hundred of hours grinding a title.

zamial · May 04, 2008, 03:21 PM // 15:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mewcatus

At this point, I honestly believe that 7-Heroes will come out eventually, just that given that it is really a radical change which might change how GW is played and percieved, the idea is being placed on the backbench, until:

1. GW2 comes out, becomes a major hit. In this case, to keep GW1 sales up, with that HoM thing, 7 heroes might be introduced to get encourage players to back one title, and accomplish some things before going to GW 2.

or

2. GW2 comes out, and fails miserably for one reason OR anothing, maybe competetive market or just plain bad gameplay. In which case, releasing 7 heroes in GW 1, while they iron out the kinks the GW 2, would give them a large window of opportunity to help minimise the impacts.

The above 2 scenarios are NOT the only reasons why, but probably is the most realistic ones on why Anet has not decided to release it. Keeping 7 Heroes back as a fail safe net is a corporate strategy, and from Anet's point of view, much better set for a "rainy" day, so to speak.

I fully agree, or a even worse senario would be for a A-net to implement 1 or 2 more titles after gw2 comes out and to bump up the koabd title a tier to help keep gw1 alive.

HuntMaster Avatar · May 04, 2008, 05:44 PM // 17:44

All players strike for 1 week, 7 days, and not play gw at all. send in emails demanding 7 heroe access. if everyone stopped playing gw for 7 days, i think it would make an impact.

remember folks, we dont need anet, but they need us.

Konig Des Todes · May 04, 2008, 05:52 PM // 17:52

My opinion:

Go with 5 heroes.

Why only 5?
Because most of the original, and best in my opinion, game *prophecies*.

Why not 7?
Because for the areas that are 8 party groups, 2 henchmen is not terrible awful and 5 heroes allows for most of those areas to be done without those 2 henchmen anyways.

Why is 5, or even 7, heroes better then ursan?
I think everyone can agree that 6 ursans that know what to do, with 2 HB monks, and consumables, are much more overpowering then 7 heroes. ANet disagrees, as far as they have mentioned at least, but I don't think they would disagree with it being overpowering then 5 heroes.

Both 7 and 5 hero suggestions are much better then ursan. It allows those who want to solo the game to actually solo Hard Mode, and not be forced to join groups to use a skill they may not like. And for those who dislike Ursan but can never find a non-Ursan HM guild, like myself, they are forced to use Ursan or use heroes and henchmen. Also, if Ursan was never put in, but 5 heroes was, then those who don't want to solo everything still don't have to. Just as now, they would find Pugs or Guilds that does what they do, the Ursan idea would just be removed.

Also, 5 or 7 heroes would allow people who are not as good with 3 heroes to do Elite Missions because of the no henchmen thing.

ANet wants to make things easier without being imbalanced. Well Ursan without putting in 7, or 5, heroes makes the PvE game imbalanced.

Should Hero Battles be changed?
Option put in to have 4v4 or 6v6/8v8 *whichever is put in* but not force either of the 2.

I believe I put in every common issue, but if there is something else that I forgot to mention, please tell me and I will post again with why 5 heroes would be best.

Edit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuntMaster Avatar

All players strike for 1 week, 7 days, and not play gw at all. send in emails demanding 7 heroe access. if everyone stopped playing gw for 7 days, i think it would make an impact.

remember folks, we dont need anet, but they need us.

To many people play GW, that would never work, but if the miracle happened and it did, we will get 7 heroes

*or better, 5*

zwei2stein · May 04, 2008, 05:55 PM // 17:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuntMaster Avatar

All players strike for 1 week, 7 days, and not play gw at all. send in emails demanding 7 heroe access. if everyone stopped playing gw for 7 days, i think it would make an impact.

remember folks, we dont need anet, but they need us.

But why would anet care?

a) They already have all the money you were ever gonna spend on GW1, and people who like heroes are not people who would buy GW2 anyway. They might as well enjoy less server load and praise for better pings from people who dont join you. Cold and hard fact: anet does not need you anymore.

b) You will have hard time actually telling about this to noticeable amount of people. And its not like they would stop playing (seriously, would any bear stop playing for week to support this cause? dont think so.)

c) Noone on forums would care enough to make this panic-worthy in anet HQ. Any ragequit thread is met with resounding "dont let the door hit you on your way out.". For some reason greatest sin MMO comunity member can do is to proclaim he is (semi)quiting in fasite forum thread.

Leetwalrushunter · May 04, 2008, 06:05 PM // 18:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuntMaster Avatar

All players strike for 1 week, 7 days, and not play gw at all. send in emails demanding 7 heroe access. if everyone stopped playing gw for 7 days, i think it would make an impact.

remember folks, we dont need anet, but they need us.

yeah dude anet would like it if we didnt play, less people complaining

MasterSasori · May 04, 2008, 06:25 PM // 18:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuntMaster Avatar

All players strike for 1 week, 7 days, and not play gw at all. send in emails demanding 7 heroe access. if everyone stopped playing gw for 7 days, i think it would make an impact.

remember folks, we dont need anet, but they need us.

Good luck finding people willing to listen to this.

Martin Alvito · May 04, 2008, 06:45 PM // 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

Has it occurred to you that maybe I don't have time to network together 8 live people to do a 20 minute mission?

Some of us don't play for 4-6hours at a time, we just log on and get straight to the fighting then log off afterwards. Hard to imagine for some but its really true.

Then you shouldn't be able to do the hardest content in the game. Plain and simple. If you want an 8-player game dumbed down to the point where one human and 7 AI players can be just as effective as a team full of 8 real, live human beings, then you want an imbalanced game.

Call it an elitist attitude if you want, but the simple fact of the matter is that 8 good players are better at playing the game than 1 human and 7 AIs; as a consequence, if a game designer wants to challenge 8 good players, there has to be content that those players can complete that the hunan and AIs cannot.

7 heroes will give you more control over your own fate; it won't resolve the underlying issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

When I have time to kill I do use my guildies/friends, that often means setting up a time several days in advance or waiting 20-30minutes for them to finish what they are in the middle of when I log on.

You overcome this problem by having MORE guildies and allies to go with your friends.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

Why should I be forced to leave the Guild I started 3years ago just because were a small group of friends?

Most of our experiances with Alliances have been less then fun.

Why doesn't your small group of friends go find some more people that are worth playing with? Just because it hasn't worked in the past doesn't mean it won't work in the future. If your small group of friends has a sufficient combination of 'fun to be around' and play skill, plenty of guilds/alliances out there would love to have you. If your group doesn't have that combination, that's your problem right there.

Having real people to play with is a numbers game; the more people you know, the more likely you are to be able to find a group to do something when you log on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaotic Coyote

I played 4000 hours of GW over 18 months. My friends list was quite mercurial; people disappeared form the game on a regular basis. The few good compatriots I found often moved to other games.

Now, you could just say thet I'm no good at making friends...

Actually, I'd argue that you just didn't make enough of them. GW is, as you state, a high-turnover game. However, if you have a regular crew that succeeds at the game, it isn't hard to find replacements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaotic Coyote

...and I would point out my 400-person-strong WoW guild, 90% of whom are adults, and many of whom at over the age of 40 (like me). We do raiding, questing, leveling -- all good stuff. My WoW friends list is always full of active players, and I almost never have a problem finding a group.

A fluke of WoW? No -- because I've had the same experience in LotRO.

Monthly subscription business model. If people were going to quit those games, they'd have done it a long time ago. Proves nothing about GW, unless you want to make the argument that the expansion-based business model is bad. There are plenty of 500+ member alliances in GW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaotic Coyote

GW enforces a sense of incredible selfishness, because the only character progress is vanity items. Thus it attracts a large community of people who are more interested in appearances than substance.

Astonishingly stupid blanket statement. The real problem is that it tends to attract a younger player base because of the lack of a monthly fee. Adolescents are generally more interested in appearances over substance. Just how it works.

The antidote to this, by the way, is to build your guild by getting a core group of good players together and building the roster through play (and success) in high-end areas. Once you achieve critical mass, you start attracting your recruits' friends, who are usually worth having.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaotic Coyote

I liked GW until they added Hard Mode, and then dumbed it down with Ursan and consumables... if you want to be social, you have to grind titles for cheat-like skills. And solo play is broken by ANet's idiotic refusal to implement full-hero parties. They created a poor social environment, and then try to force us to play there.

PvE skills are a terrible mechanic. No argument there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaotic Coyote

Oh, I still play GW from time to time. I jump in on my ranger, and go solo (no heroes or henches) hunting, just for the fun of it. But in terms of socialization -- I'd rather play with heroes who don't insult me for my build or insist that I spend hundred of hours grinding a title.

Get a better build, nub. If you're playing a suboptimal build, you're wasting my time. If you don't have the skills you need to get the job done as efficiently as possible, you're wasting my time.

That's the flip side of your argument, from a team leader's perspective.

If you're getting build criticism, one of two things is true. Either you're trying to play with bad players that don't know an effective build when they see it, or you're trying to play with good players that refuse to waste time and risk failure by permitting players to bring whatever they want. In the former case, find people that don't fail. In the latter case, you need to adapt in order to survive.

No question that the PvE skills are problematic in that they create a barrier to entry for new players. However, the barriers to entry for the endgame content in WoW (in terms of time investment) are pretty large. I don't think that you can make the argument that it's harder to get a character set up in GW than it is in WoW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuntMaster Avatar

All players strike for 1 week, 7 days, and not play gw at all. send in emails demanding 7 heroe access. if everyone stopped playing gw for 7 days, i think it would make an impact.

remember folks, we dont need anet, but they need us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action

bhavv · May 04, 2008, 07:30 PM // 19:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuntMaster Avatar

All players strike for 1 week, 7 days, and not play gw at all. send in emails demanding 7 heroe access. if everyone stopped playing gw for 7 days, i think it would make an impact.

remember folks, we dont need anet, but they need us.

What do Anet need us for? They already have our money and dont charge any fees.

And anyway, I am 100% /unsigned to this totally rubbish idea of allowing 7 heroes in GW now because I dont want a reason to have to return to the game.

Solas · May 04, 2008, 08:19 PM // 20:19

its grand the way it is,Henchmen do a nice job too.
it would make pve a bit more unbalanced.

/not-signed