Curse

Bryant Again · Sep 12, 2008, 11:28 PM // 23:28

Wow, whatever happened to the concern about PUGs?

DreamWind · Sep 12, 2008, 11:29 PM // 23:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by trankle

That's the fatal flaw with "seven heroes are too powerful" or "seven heroes would break the difficulty of the game" arguments. Eight real players are more powerful than one player plus AI. It's true now, and it would be true with seven heroes.

This argument is the fatal flaw of people that want 7 heros because they say PuGs are bad.

The only legit argument I've seen for 7 heroes is that the community is so spread out that you can't find players in many places. That is the reason I don't really mind what happens. I am just saying there are so many garbage arguments in this thread that I had to post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeper Service

dream you completely missed the whole argument about why ursan was bad, not surprising really.

LoL...you said "Ursan" and "was not the problem" in the same sentence. The rest of your content isn't even worth mentioning. This thread isn't even about Ursan.

The only reason I brought it and soul reaping up is to counter those people saying "most people voted yes so it should be added to the game" which is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Bryant Again · Sep 12, 2008, 11:49 PM // 23:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

This argument is the fatal flaw of people that want 7 heros because they say PuGs are bad.

...And that's a bad argument. But it is true that human players are in general better than h/h, both due to PvE skills and the faulty AI of the heroes.

7 heroes are not a "need", they're a "want". It's not a "why?", it's a "why not?". It's a feature that would have little to no impact on the game due to the fact that it's only going to be appealing to those who are currently using heroes.

doudou_steve · Sep 13, 2008, 02:04 AM // 02:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

...And that's a bad argument. But it is true that human players are in general better than h/h, both due to PvE skills and the faulty AI of the heroes.

7 heroes are not a "need", they're a "want". It's not a "why?", it's a "why not?". It's a feature that would have little to no impact on the game due to the fact that it's only going to be appealing to those who are currently using heroes.

Tring to find a good party with good players, able to play the builds you want them to be, even if it's guildies- It's near of impossible.

So yeah, 8 good skilled humans>heroes
Trying to find those good humans IS the difficulty.

And if you say that human parties are better than heroes, then why the hell do you want 7 heroes???

JDRyder · Sep 13, 2008, 02:39 AM // 02:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Wow, whatever happened to the concern about PUGs?

its still there, but i its like saying "i like the color blue" to a much of color blind people.

Plus its already be said and gone over about 100 times now, if people want they can go back and read about it.

Inner Salbat · Sep 13, 2008, 02:57 AM // 02:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Anybody disagreeing with you is a troll. Solid! Good thing Anet agrees with the people who don't want 7 heroes!

The joke I see wasn't translated into ascii very well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Wow, whatever happened to the concern about PUGs?

Umm everyone /ragequitted ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I am just saying there are so many garbage arguments in this thread that I had to post.

That sounds a little self righteous don't you think just because you or I have differing or the same opinion doesn't make yours or mine +1 greater than anyone else's, it's just a different or the same opinion there is no value to it.

trankle · Sep 13, 2008, 03:52 AM // 03:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

This argument is the fatal flaw of people that want 7 heros because they say PuGs are bad.

I'd have to agree. For the record, my reason for wanting seven heroes is that it would be more interesting and fun than three heroes and four henchmen. I don't think it will break the game from a difficulty perspective. And I think that people who enjoy playing with others will continue to do so, and that people who don't still won't. And everyone can be happy playing the interesting, fun, balanced game that they prefer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by doudou_steve

And if you say that human parties are better than heroes, then why the hell do you want 7 heroes???

The "which is more powerful" argument was brought in response to claims that seven heroes would be too powerful in PvE.

Human parties are more powerful than seven heroes, but I'd still rather have the heroes as an option, because I play the game to have fun and enjoy myself, not make sure I'm participating in the optimal party.

DreamWind · Sep 13, 2008, 05:19 AM // 05:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inner Salbat

That sounds a little self righteous don't you think just because you or I have differing or the same opinion doesn't make yours or mine +1 greater than anyone else's, it's just a different or the same opinion there is no value to it.

I agree with you. My whole problem was there were a lot of people claiming their opinions were superior because the poll agrees with them. Like I said, I don't really care one way or the other. I just think the arguments in favor were mostly bad.

Inner Salbat · Sep 13, 2008, 07:03 AM // 07:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I agree with you. My whole problem was there were a lot of people claiming their opinions were superior because the poll agrees with them. Like I said, I don't really care one way or the other. I just think the arguments in favor were mostly bad.

This is true but just because it bad and can be refuted doesn't make it wrong though, all it comes down to is different experiences while playing the game.

After just PuGing Shards of Orr I won't touch that with anything less than 7 heros in hard mode, or do it with people that area is just insanity in normal mode which I just did with 6 ppl +1 hero, and we was using consumables like confetti in normal mode there is something VERY wrong with that.

Either we had bad build or the area for normal mode needs one hell of a NERF bat, I dread to think what it's currently like in hard mode may as well just not bother.

JeniM · Sep 13, 2008, 07:08 AM // 07:08

I think guilds and the PvE (I don't PvP so can only speak for the PvE side of the game which of course the 7heroes argument is about) player base are both in rapid decline. More people leave the game everyday and I have liked GW for a long time and try to stay interested but I am finding it hard. I have been in a few guild during my time in GWs and I find that now it's not worth the hassle of finding one, most of the "large active" guilds I see advertised are actually dying if you join and see a roster. The "Last Signed In XXX" numbers keep getting bigger and the "Members xx" number keeps getting smaller and I think this is across the game not just in guilds.

Unless you want an UW clear or a VS farm run there are no players in the out posts. I recently played on a level 10 ranger I've had sat in Ascalon for ages and couldn't find anyone to help with missions in the outposts. I resorted to using Hench and Fire Imp. This ranger isn't strictly relevant as it has no heroes anyway, however it was the first time I've noticed the lack of players be a problem short of harder areas. (normally playing on my fully kitted lvl 20 with all heroes).

I agree with Anet on the it's an MMORPG (or whatever that other collection of letters was) and people should play together. However the players are now stretched too thin over too large an area for this to happen. There are very few active guilds in PvE that I have come across and I really don't have the time to put in the 3 hours a day or whatever they ask of members. 7 Heroes is a solution to the problem of too few players over too vast an area, players can use a decent build when they need it and not have to count on henchys that have some questionable skills in there bars.

I'm sure it can't be to difficult from a programming view to change the allowed heroes from 3 to 7. You could always try it for a month and if you don't like the result (likely a raise in players logging in) then you can always change the code back. I really wish Anet were not so afraid to try things out and recieve feedback although from some of the posters on these forums I can see why they are.

Inner Salbat · Sep 13, 2008, 07:58 AM // 07:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeniM

I really wish Anet were not so afraid to try things out and recieve feedback although from some of the posters on these forums I can see why they are.

I'm not sure afraid is quite the right term here, considering they have a vested future interest in not supporting GW1 after GW2, even though they play lip service to say they would support GW1 after GW2, because of that they have no incentive to try things with GW1 beyond more retarded hero's that we don't actually need, did anyone need another Dervish? I don't think so but thanks for the 110k.

JDRyder · Sep 13, 2008, 11:42 AM // 11:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeniM

I think guilds and the PvE (I don't PvP so can only speak for the PvE side of the game which of course the 7heroes argument is about) player base are both in rapid decline. More people leave the game everyday and I have liked GW for a long time and try to stay interested but I am finding it hard. I have been in a few guild during my time in GWs and I find that now it's not worth the hassle of finding one, most of the "large active" guilds I see advertised are actually dying if you join and see a roster. The "Last Signed In XXX" numbers keep getting bigger and the "Members xx" number keeps getting smaller and I think this is across the game not just in guilds.

its not hard finding a good guild, just dont join the guilds that spam "Guild X looking for members!! GvG/UW/Fow/TA/AB/Pve/PvP/HA etc" in places like LA/ToGB/Kam/KC etc. Use the Guru forums, its not that hard finding good guilds there.

HuntMaster Avatar · Sep 13, 2008, 01:02 PM // 13:02

7 heroes would be fun. Thats all the reason needed. Its just a game. Stop taking it so seriously people. I think everyone in this thread should take a 6 month break from guildwars.

Its wonderful to leave the game and return to find something new added. I just got M.O.X, you know, that crappy hero. But it was nice to find something new. Now I won't touch gw for months.

tmr819 · Sep 13, 2008, 01:47 PM // 13:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRyder

i agree with your other idea a lot more, buying heros slots will do some good for GW2 when it comes out, wasting time on adding in 7heros with a quest does not.

Actually, I think ANet should do both: offer the 7-Hero Option for sale (the way they did with the BMP, as an add-on feature players do not really need but can pay extra for if they want it) but not have the feature operable in a given campaign on a given character until *AFTER* the campaign has been completed in normal mode. I say this just to keep the first pass through a campaign for a given character more in keeping with the way it was originally designed. It's not a perfect solution by any means -- just an idea. I only suggested the quest because that's what they did with MOX and more quests = more fun till GW2 comes out. But no quest(s) is fine with me, too.

And, yes, more money for ANet/GW2 is a good thing in my opinion as well.

Inner Salbat · Sep 13, 2008, 01:57 PM // 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuntMaster Avatar

7 heroes would be fun. Thats all the reason needed. Its just a game. Stop taking it so seriously people. I think everyone in this thread should take a 6 month break from guildwars.

Its wonderful to leave the game and return to find something new added. I just got M.O.X, you know, that crappy hero. But it was nice to find something new. Now I won't touch gw for months.

6 months ? after what I've seen today with the game I'm borderline quitting, of course I would advise anyone reading that it's just the frustration factor sitting in, while looking for PuGs where there should be plenty, but what do I find? oh no... a pack of flaming farmers digging about for a stupid volcanic spear, and no where near enough people looking for a group to play any of the content, maybe farmers are the reason why PuGs failed everyone of them is out to make them self rich and to hell with the game and it's content.

JaiGaia · Sep 13, 2008, 04:05 PM // 16:05

Before i start 7 Hero discussion and the talk of paying for the use of it should not go into the same sentence. There would be an outcry of outraged ppl.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeniM

I think guilds and the PvE (I don't PvP so can only speak for the PvE side of the game which of course the 7heroes argument is about) player base are both in rapid decline. More people leave the game everyday and I have liked GW for a long time and try to stay interested but I am finding it hard. I have been in a few guild during my time in GWs and I find that now it's not worth the hassle of finding one, most of the "large active" guilds I see advertised are actually dying if you join and see a roster. The "Last Signed In XXX" numbers keep getting bigger and the "Members xx" number keeps getting smaller and I think this is across the game not just in guilds.

I agree with Anet on the it's an MMORPG (or whatever that other collection of letters was) and people should play together. However the players are now stretched too thin over too large an area for this to happen. There are very few active guilds in PvE that I have come across and I really don't have the time to put in the 3 hours a day or whatever they ask of members. 7 Heroes is a solution to the problem of too few players over too vast an area, players can use a decent build when they need it and not have to count on henchys that have some questionable skills in there bars.

This by far is the most legitimate reasoning behind the debate of 7 heroes and why we should be allowed. When i first began around the release of factions there was talk of players being spread thin but at the time GW was still an ever growing community so it balanced out between Factions and the release of NF. Alot of players between two campaigns. By the time NF hit the compensation was the 4 Heroes as a good counter for the spread out community as it was foreseen coming due to the three chapters/campaigns. EotN furthered this as well as the title questing and farming thats been implemented. PPl want to do it but dont always have the time, or they have the time but not the audience to do so, 7 heroes is compensation as well as allows them to enjoy the game the way they want to play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeniM

I'm sure it can't be to difficult from a programming view to change the allowed heroes from 3 to 7. You could always try it for a month and if you don't like the result (likely a raise in players logging in) then you can always change the code back. I really wish Anet were not so afraid to try things out and recieve feedback although from some of the posters on these forums I can see why they are.

Ill say to this directly they gave us 3 so 7 shouldnt be that big of a deal to program in if we already have coding for it for a H/H party.

To be fair i dont think they knew how big Heroes would become into the factor of play in their game. On the other hand _ why give us so many heroes to equip and time sink too when we're not allowed the diversity to use them to our full advantage? So what if it makes PvE gaming simple or overpowered, ironically one of the biggest downsides to GW was the fact that theres no true ability to SOLO an area, something they are making sure to include into GW2, so this raises the idea that 7 Heroes should become the acceptance bc they know ppl want to solo as well as pug/ premade bigger more challenging areas. But in this game u cant TRULY SOLO .. so 7 heroes is the compensation or gives that feel.

Ill even take the 7 heroes to the level it will go next ... to the 11 for elite areas. Dont lose me here .... Think about it when they allow 7 we may see an influx of players returning again but again would it be enough to satisfy everyone. Probably not and they will ask for this next. Is it wrong of course not, and sure it should be allowed EVENTUALLY cos the population will still be spread and dying. Think D.o.A and how dead it became or Urgoz or the Deep. There were ppl who probably never got a chance to complete, maybe all they bought was NF or Factions + Eotn isnt this their compensation as well, to be able to play how they want when they want. Bad example but still an example. lol. No but serious this would come down the line so lets knock this out the way now. who knows maybe ull Hero/Hench with a few ppl along the way. As well as gives them more opportunity to enjoy the full aspects of the game w/ out having to worry whether or not u can find a good team to play with anywhere, anytime.

Or how bout pve only skills that seems to be a topic too now a day, should this be allowed too since we'd be able to use 7 heroes, sure why not or maybe they could make each hero have a specialty skill for PVE. Idk but i dont see why not allow the team to be fully capable of running the gauntlet anywhere. just negate certain elite pve only skills from list. Im not saying i agree or disagree, i just figure why not, it all goes into allowing the person to play the game they want to play if they choose to play solo or with friend[s].

Inner Salbat · Sep 13, 2008, 05:01 PM // 17:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaiGaia

This by far is the most legitimate reasoning behind the debate of 7 heroes and why we should be allowed.

Another one joins the fold welcome to the vigil, I'm not sure even 7 heroes will get you past some content in the game but it sure as hell would be a step in the right direction, I'm sick and tried of bumping in areas where all there is farming people and no one to play the content with, if I'd rushed with everyone else on the release of EoTN for example I wouldn't have this problem, but fool me decided it was time to put it down for awhile about a month after EoTN release.

So I'm not allowed to take breaks? others wise I'll miss out on PuG grouping if I felt like it that is just stupid and presents a broken game if you cannot come back to it and complete things because no one else is doing them anymore or not enough, which is the reason why 7/11 heroes are so important.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaiGaia

Or how bout pve only skills that seems to be a topic too now a day, should this be allowed too since we'd be able to use 7 heroes, sure why not or maybe they could make each hero have a specialty skill for PVE. Idk but i dont see why not allow the team to be fully capable of running the gauntlet anywhere. just negate certain elite pve only skills from list. Im not saying i agree or disagree, i just figure why not, it all goes into allowing the person to play the game they want to play if they choose to play solo or with friend[s].

Now here I would have to disagree and agree some PvE only skills should be able to be used by heroes yes but not all because that would really over power them, LoD should be able to be used by heroes because ANet for example should have had the forethought that you do not make something key to a quest/mission that forces a skill off of a monk bar.

On the other hand full human groups can do this already, and I don't understand why people have not already made builds to abuse this fact it might be people are stick of the nerfing of skills and using them tentatively because they don't want them nerfed and don't want public attention drawn to them although pain inverter is getting some chatter.

Either way unless they do something there going to run out of time before GW2, D3 is on it's way that is going to create a dent in our population, GW the complete collection is just desperation they can already see it coming, and releasing new content once a month is just a carrot on a stick to keep people in the game those content updates help no one, people that have done everything will log on complete the quest and log off there not doing anything in game.

In fact if I had not started playing again I wouldn't even know about MOX it's not like on my time off I was doing anything anywhere near where I might find out what was happening with GW, to be honest at the time I really didn't care what was going on in GW I'd had a guts full of the game.

Bryant Again · Sep 13, 2008, 10:44 PM // 22:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by doudou_steve

Tring to find a good party with good players, able to play the builds you want them to be, even if it's guildies- It's near of impossible.

So yeah, 8 good skilled humans>heroes
Trying to find those good humans IS the difficulty.

Granted, I don't think it's accurate to say that pugs=human parties. But there is one chief factor that I've mentioned many times in this thread: PvE skills. An H/H'er can only bring 3, while a full human group can have as many as 24. That's a lot of OP right there, and sometimes is just enough to bridge that gap

Quote:

Originally Posted by doudou_steve

And if you say that human parties are better than heroes, then why the hell do you want 7 heroes???

It's not about being more better or successful in the game - as mentioned numerous times already, if you can't beat a huge majority of the game already than you're bayad - it's about being able to have a team build that's personalized and your own. In general, it's just to have a bit more fun. It's not about making things easier for soloers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRyder

its still there, but i its like saying "i like the color blue" to a much of color blind people.

Plus its already be said and gone over about 100 times now, if people want they can go back and read about it.

Hm. That's not a very accurate metaphor, but what I think you're trying to say is that most people just aren't going to get the point no matter how many times you tell us?

If so, then that's not the case. It's not that we're not believing you, it's that we're not seeing any reasonings for it - i.e. you haven't really shown us *how* pugs are going to be "damaged", at most more than they already are.

What we do know is this:
-A lot players are "bad"
-A "bad" player is not going to find much benefit from heroes because you need to be not bad to use them well
-If the "bad" player still wants to use heroes anyway, even though he's likely to fail, than he's actually doing a service to other pugs by keeping his badness to himself rather than with other people
-A "bad" player, in this instance, would in this instance be better off with henchies, not heroes

JDRyder · Sep 14, 2008, 12:18 AM // 00:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

Actually, I think ANet should do both: offer the 7-Hero Option for sale (the way they did with the BMP, as an add-on feature players do not really need but can pay extra for if they want it) but not have the feature operable in a given campaign on a given character until *AFTER* the campaign has been completed in normal mode. I say this just to keep the first pass through a campaign for a given character more in keeping with the way it was originally designed. It's not a perfect solution by any means -- just an idea. I only suggested the quest because that's what they did with MOX and more quests = more fun till GW2 comes out. But no quest(s) is fine with me, too.

And, yes, more money for ANet/GW2 is a good thing in my opinion as well.

im all for money for GW2, $10 a hero gogo, and then just block them in some areas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaiGaia

To be fair i dont think they knew how big Heroes would become into the factor of play in their game. On the other hand _ why give us so many heroes to equip and time sink too when we're not allowed the diversity to use them to our full advantage? So what if it makes PvE gaming simple or overpowered, ironically one of the biggest downsides to GW was the fact that theres no true ability to SOLO an area, something they are making sure to include into GW2, so this raises the idea that 7 Heroes should become the acceptance bc they know ppl want to solo as well as pug/ premade bigger more challenging areas. But in this game u cant TRULY SOLO .. so 7 heroes is the compensation or gives that feel.

what are you talking about H/H IS truly solo, theres no real players other than yourself. Look at heros are some sort of boss that you can add to your party, and than you have 4 other nubs that you cant change builds on.

"dont feel like going over your other points... again..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Hm. That's not a very accurate metaphor, but what I think you're trying to say is that most people just aren't going to get the point no matter how many times you tell us?

you cant get any more spot on with my analogy imo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

If so, then that's not the case. It's not that we're not believing you, it's that we're not seeing any reasonings for it - i.e. you haven't really shown us *how* pugs are going to be "damaged", at most more than they already are.

nightfall much?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

What we do know is this:
-A lot players are "bad"
-A "bad" player is not going to find much benefit from heroes because you need to be not bad to use them well
-If the "bad" player still wants to use heroes anyway, even though he's likely to fail, than he's actually doing a service to other pugs by keeping his badness to himself rather than with other people
-A "bad" player, in this instance, would in this instance be better off with henchies, not heroes

-A lot players are bad, and still dont pug cause they think they are better then they are.
-A bad player is not going to find much benefit from heroes because they are bad.
-If the bad player still wants to use heroes anyway, then he needs to join a group and learn something.
-A bad player, in this instance, would be better off learning from other players cause things are not going to go his way most likely and he may find a easier way to do things, other than failing over and over and blaming it on the IA.

fixed imo

Bryant Again · Sep 14, 2008, 12:29 AM // 00:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRyder

you cant get any more spot on with my analogy imo.

...And you're still not explaining/providing for your viewpoint. 'grats, you just proved my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRyder

nightfall much?

3 huge continents and a decreasing playerbase much?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRyder

-A lot players are bad, and still dont pug cause they think they are better then they are.
-A bad player is not going to find much benefit from heroes because they are bad.
-If the bad player still wants to use heroes anyway, then he needs to join a group and learn something.
-A bad player, in this instance, would be better off learning from other players cause things are not going to go his way most likely and he may find a easier way to do things, other than failing over and over and blaming it on the IA.

So, the "bad player" in this instance will stay with heroes and continue to fail. If so, then let me ask you this: If this person isn't learning from his continued deaths and losses, what makes you think he's going to learn anything from pugs? And if he's blaming all of his failure on the AI* then why is he staying with the h/h?

*again, it's AI for "artificial intelligence". There's no such thing as IA for "intelligence artificial".