Curse

tmr819 · Mar 24, 2008, 11:34 PM // 23:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sp3tzn4z

I don't wanna be rude or anything but that looks like the subjects are beeing avoided. I know there are alot of things beeing done at Anet but i think alot of people would like a answer and nada just doesn't cut it. And sry for that because you are my most favourite person that has something to do with GW.

I'd say she's just trying to be circumspect, actually. I found Gaile's post somewhat encouraging in that it confirms (once again) that ANet is aware of and looking at these issues and suggestions and at the forums and is at least considering what people want. Seriously, if they conducted a poll of GW players -- "Would you like to be able to use Seven Heroes at a time instead of the current Three-Hero cap?" -- is there any doubt about what the poll results would be?

While I would love to see 7 heroes, I can certainly live without them. I just think it would add new life to a dwindling game. I mean think about it: there will be no more new content (for GW1), and GW2 will not be ready for another year or so at the soonest. This makes for a player fanbase that's just gonna dwindle over the course of next 12 months or so. ArenaNet has a lot to gain (and little to lose) by adding a feature like this, imo.

Because "Seven Heroes" is a lot like the BMP in that it is not essential for gameplay, but just a kind of bonus game enhancement, I could even see them selling the option in their online store like they did the mission pack. Frankly, of the two, I'd rather buy the "Seven-Heroes Option" than the BMP, but that's just me.

vaxmor · Mar 25, 2008, 12:41 AM // 00:41

Working as intended.

Numa Pompilius · Mar 25, 2008, 12:45 AM // 00:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

I'd rather buy the "Seven-Heroes Option" than the BMP, but that's just me.

It would surprise me if the option to get (or buy) extra hero slots doesn't eventually show up, although perhaps not before GW2 is released and player numbers in GW1 tumble.

ANet obviously primarily want people playing with other people, as all research shows that it's the social interaction which keeps people hooked to MMORPGs, but as people start defecting to GW2 in about a years time adding extra hero slots will just be a nice gesture towards the last GW1 hold-outs.

Trub · Mar 25, 2008, 12:46 AM // 00:46

tmr819 wrote:

Quote:

Because "Seven Heroes" is a lot like the BMP in that it is not essential for gameplay, but just a kind of bonus game enhancement, I could even see them selling the option in their online store like they did the mission pack. Frankly, of the two, I'd rather buy the "Seven-Heroes Option" than the BMP, but that's just me.

I would actually pay for that myself...

Nemo the Capitalist · Mar 25, 2008, 01:27 AM // 01:27

who does pve anyways joke i love it

bhavv · Mar 25, 2008, 02:52 AM // 02:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turtle222

Why do you need 7 heroes? 3 is good enough. Anet allowed only 3 heroes so you don't run a chain pve team and also experiment with more than just dunkoro/zhed/olias...livia/olias/MoW

Instead, blame yourselves for not varying your heroes from time to time.

Why do you need ursan? Because noob pugs cant vary their builds to change away from tank nuker SS and monks?

People that H/H vary their heroes a lot more then ursan does. And variation is the entire reason why we want 7 heroes so we can use whatever builds we like and we dont have to keep on using the exact same henchmen bars.

There is so much discussion on this yet there are still ignorant people that cant understand any of it.

Default Name · Mar 25, 2008, 02:56 AM // 02:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turtle222

Why do you need 7 heroes? 3 is good enough. Anet allowed only 3 heroes so you don't run a chain pve team and also experiment with more than just dunkoro/zhed/olias...livia/olias/MoW

Instead, blame yourselves for not varying your heroes from time to time.

[sarcasm] Wow this one makes so much sense. [/sarcasm]

Only 3 out of a possible 7 so players get more choices? Can I have what you're smoking please?

Cacheelma · Mar 25, 2008, 04:13 AM // 04:13

I don't know if someone has raised this point already, but let me try.-

It has been stated (by Anet) in the past that Henchman's AI isn't the best AI Anet can come up with; they made the AI to behave (stupidly) the way it is on purpose.

On what purpose? They also stated that they want to make sure that the game remains "cooperative play", as in, people play together. That is why the henchman's AI won't be improved to be the best there is.

Same goes for heroes and their AIs.

Now, Ursan came around. I'd say that you CAN'T say "we have ursan, why can't we have 7 heroes. We can already steamroll pve with ursan". That's not the point. THE POINT IS you still need other people beside yourself in order to accomplish something with ursan. Allowing 7 heroes would mean that people can play alone with their heroes and the game will become "solo play" instead of "cooperative play".

Got my point?

Don't get me wrong, I want to use 7 heroes too. But having ursan isn't the same as having 7 heroes. It's not about "easy mode pve". It's all about "cooperative play" between people.

bhavv · Mar 25, 2008, 04:18 AM // 04:18

The game is already solo playable and is advertised as being a solo game.

/Sigh again.

WoW, lotro and maple story are all soloable too. I never play with other people in GW unless they are in my guild.

Got my point?

My game box states internet connection required to play, not other people required to play.

Tarun · Mar 25, 2008, 04:22 AM // 04:22

I'd love 7 heroes in the party. I was doing some mapping in Cantha earlier and it got very old having to change hench because of the towns/outposts I went to.

Cacheelma · Mar 25, 2008, 04:35 AM // 04:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

The game is already solo playable and is advertised as being a solo game.

/Sigh again.

WoW, lotro and maple story are all soloable too. I never play with other people in GW unless they are in my guild.

Got my point?

My game box states internet connection required to play, not other people required to play.

I agree with you COMPLETELY. And that is why I stated many times in my previous post that THAT WHAT ANET SAID.

Anet wants to maintain the cooperative part of the game (no matter how futile it is, if you ask me). Giving people ursan allow them to accomplish some difficult stuff COOPERATIVELY. Giving people 7 heroes would let people accomplish difficult stuff SOLO.

I like being able to solo too. But Anet doesn't like it. My point (again) is that it's not about how overpowered the 7 heroes would be or how ursan is already overpowered. It's about how ursan promotes cooperative play (which Anet prefers), while 7 heroes would promote soloplay (Anet hates).

R.Shayne · Mar 25, 2008, 05:12 AM // 05:12

I thought the official reason given for not having 7 heros was it would clutter up the screen? Can't remember where I read that but think it was some interview.

Isileth · Mar 25, 2008, 05:20 AM // 05:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.Shayne

I thought the official reason given for not having 7 heros was it would clutter up the screen? Can't remember where I read that but think it was some interview.

Which is another silly reason against.

No one is forced to have all 7 heroes bars shown at once...

bhavv · Mar 25, 2008, 05:32 AM // 05:32

You can use as many hero bars as you like. You dont need 7 bars open at once, just like henchmen dont require open skill bars.

This has also been discussed to death plenty of times, I really wish people would bother reading the whole thread(s) before posting.

I feel like starting a long email discussion with anet support again. When they say go to the forums, I'll just keep on replying untill I get somewhere. If I get nowhere, I'll keep bombarding them with e mails.

strcpy · Mar 25, 2008, 07:02 AM // 07:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.Shayne

I thought the official reason given for not having 7 heros was it would clutter up the screen? Can't remember where I read that but think it was some interview.

The official reason has been posted again in this thread a few pages back. It consists of three points: 1) would be imbalanced 2) discourage grouping 3) too cluttered if you opened all the interfaces.

Now, on to my thoughts about that.

They have backed off one for now as they realize that the newer PvE only skills are highly imbalanced. While Ursan is the current complaint even if they nerfed it into oblivion there are MANY others that are just as imbalanced in a team setting - just not as simple to run. They mostly just dropped talking about and say "that's different" when pushed.

Point three is further told as a slippery slope issue - that is if they give in to the 7 hero thing then the next thing people will want is an interface change and that is way to drastic to do (note 7 heroes isn't hard nor is the interface or flagging but that what people will maybe eventually probably want is). Therefore they will not start the slippery slope. While I am sure there will be complaints (no matter what they do there will be some) they already started down that slippery slope (and have gone further than 7 heroes) with the original introduction of heroes and now with the PvE only skills. Plus there would be MUCH less complaints over the interface than what they currently get for 7 heroes. Also I would say if they held out for this long on 7 heroes that they could hold indefinably on a different interface (for one thing I don't think they can "fix" the problem of too much clutter so no amounts of complaints will make a difference). Add in that the vast majority of us would be more than satisfied to control just the build and equipment (A so called super hench) and you get an even worse slippery slope argument (at one time Gaile said "possible - she will check" on that one but since it's been quietly dropped/ignored since then I suppose the answer was "nope").

The only one that still really stands as much as it ever did is the discourage groups. For that it will depend on your personal opinion. I do agree that things like Ursan and 7 heroes are inherently different simply because of this part - Ursan *encourages* (in fact pretty much requires for the skill to be overpowered) grouping. When Nightfall was first out they said that the whole three heroes per person was chosen to promote at least groups of two people. As to if this actually makes more people group, again you will find many different answers. In this case Anet's is the opinion that matters and they think it would change it drastically (personally I agree that the people who group will continue too - mostly within their guild - and those that don't will not).

odly · Mar 25, 2008, 09:07 AM // 09:07

Why is everyone insisting on only 7 heroes.
I need 11, so I can do The Deep and Urgoz.

Patrick Smit · Mar 25, 2008, 09:57 AM // 09:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stolen Souls

Yes I mean...its not like we can do that already, by having a friend join, add his heros, then leave. *rolls eyes*

This only works in the first region, after continuing to a next one you WILL loose his/her heroes as well.

upier · Mar 25, 2008, 10:27 AM // 10:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

I agree with you COMPLETELY. And that is why I stated many times in my previous post that THAT WHAT ANET SAID.

Anet wants to maintain the cooperative part of the game (no matter how futile it is, if you ask me). Giving people ursan allow them to accomplish some difficult stuff COOPERATIVELY. Giving people 7 heroes would let people accomplish difficult stuff SOLO.

I like being able to solo too. But Anet doesn't like it. My point (again) is that it's not about how overpowered the 7 heroes would be or how ursan is already overpowered. It's about how ursan promotes cooperative play (which Anet prefers), while 7 heroes would promote soloplay (Anet hates).

The 1 mil $ then is:
Do people that hero/hench everything that they can - party with people for the the things that they can't hero/hench or just don't do them?

If I can't do it with heroes/hench - I won't do it.
I play with people IF I am in the mood for it (because it's fun - as in the mesmer/ritualist trips, helping out guildies, wanting a laugh, ....) instead me needing to play with people.
If I NEED to do something with people - there is a big chance I won't do it often or at all.

CHannum · Mar 25, 2008, 11:35 AM // 11:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

The 1 mil $ then is:
Do people that hero/hench everything that they can - party with people for the the things that they can't hero/hench or just don't do them?

I just don't do them. I play with two (three if he ever gets another computer that'll play GW) real life friends/family. If for whatever the reason we can't manage something I couldn't H/H on my own, I don't bother. Not about to start wasting my time "LFG" when there's the other 98% of the content I could be experiencing instead of fretting about what killing Mallyx is like in a full team of UB/monks

Cacheelma · Mar 25, 2008, 12:14 PM // 12:14

I rarely do something I can't h/h nowadays. I just don't have time to wait around for some stars to align and bring me to the place with people who want to do the same thing as me.

Trust me, finding a soulmate might be easier. j/k.

Also, I sometimes have lag issues these days. Grouping for me would mean I lag terribly while people do the work for me (and that's what the h/h do for me currently).

I found the whole "we want players to play together cooperatively" vision of Anet to be complete bollocks from the get-go. And for them to enforce so many stuff to make sure we MUST play together? That's pathetic.

But who am I to say, really? Other games learned from WoW that solo-ability with optional cooperative playability = win. Let's see how long it takes for Anet to understand that. GW2 perhaps? Maybe not?