Curse

bhavv · Aug 28, 2007, 09:37 PM // 21:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by artay

Of course we all screwed now, because no one wants to teach a person who thinks having a primary warrior bonding is a good thing. (had to put my experience in, he kept running out of energy ok)

The problem is it takes too much time to get someone to change their skillbars, and most of these players dont even have the right skills. also a lot of people wont listen.

I remember once when I played with a Ranger In HM. When I asked him to reskill he replied 'Dont think that I have the same skills that you do'. I just thought WTF and asked if he could buy them to improve his bar. Then he replies 'No cos I dont need them'. Some people just exist to be useless and annoying beyond useless and annoying.

Bride of the Atom · Aug 28, 2007, 10:53 PM // 22:53

By thread page 8, everything has probably been said. But! Hell, I might as well, anyway. The fact is that people who prefer to play with NPCs already play with heroes/henchmen, and it's already the direction the game has headed to and settled in, if unintentionally. The inclusion of henchmen in the game has made grouping not 100% necessary from the start-- i.e. the game could have been designed as human player only. Also, the prospect of solo (but still immensely social through shared districts and chat) play was a huge draw for many people, including myself.

Considering that such an enormous amount of people already play PvE with three heroes and four henchmen, allowing seven heroes doesn't seem like such a drastic measure, especially since we have a ridiculous-long list of them available. I've only ever bothered PuGing for missions. Doing it for every single little quest in the game is too inconvenient to even consider, especially when players are spread out over such a vast map. Since I only go questing with NPCs anyway (unless some friends are on, but that doesn't happen much nowadays), it would be nice --and very fun-- to be able to customize and experiment with all of the builds instead of taking boring, static henchmen that usually suck. Micro-managing wouldn't be a problem for me since I don't use it a lot anyhow. The flagging situation could be easily improvised.

Oh god, I just wrote an essay.

Also, Meteor Shower Ranger FTW!!

LoKi Foxfire · Aug 28, 2007, 11:16 PM // 23:16

I have used heroes and/or henchmen completely since Factions. I beat Factions in like 1 day with just henchmen.

Who cares A-net, just let us use all 7 heroes. It didn't help that your grouping system for players has been horrible for 2 years now. :P

dunky_g · Aug 28, 2007, 11:27 PM // 23:27

cos if you could use 25 heros you would pwn

bokken · Aug 28, 2007, 11:30 PM // 23:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bride of the Atom

The fact is that people who prefer to play with NPCs already play with heroes/henchmen, and it's already the direction the game has headed to and settled in

I agree

People who prefer to ( or through circumstance ) play with heroes and henchies are going to continue to do so.

Instead of ignoring the situation and giving us very little in the way of any sort of excuse as to why we cant have 7 heroes why not go in the opposite direction entirely? Make it advantageous to form full groups of live players: increase loot drops and increase the chances of better drops (purple / gold ) in groups of full live players. At least that would encourage some people to want to PUG more often.

korcan · Aug 28, 2007, 11:41 PM // 23:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

/signed

I stopped PUG-ing during Prophecies; somehow I got sick of penises and boobs being drawn all over the mini-map, along with general immaturity. While I don't care too much about it, the option would certainly be nice to have.

rofl! qft

penis artists are very common in pugs.

if not 7 heroes how about 4 anet? pretty please

edit. i remember someone drawing the most detailed penis on the minimap, he had it down to a science, hairy testicles and all, lol. i think thats the only time i actually lol when someone decided to use the minimap as their canvas for penis art.

Zinger314 · Aug 28, 2007, 11:42 PM // 23:42

The original henchmen system was implemented as "replacements" for a healer, etc. to save time in the event a group could not get a full-human team. ArenaNet forgot to factor in the reality that people who play MMOs tend to be anti-social...

I see no compelling argument against 7 Heroes.

darktyco · Aug 28, 2007, 11:47 PM // 23:47

I might start playing the game again if I could use 7 heroes at a time

Bride of the Atom · Aug 29, 2007, 12:52 AM // 00:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by bokken

Instead of ignoring the situation and giving us very little in the way of any sort of excuse as to why we cant have 7 heroes why not go in the opposite direction entirely? Make it advantageous to form full groups of live players: increase loot drops and increase the chances of better drops (purple / gold ) in groups of full live players. At least that would encourage some people to want to PUG more often.

That, my friend, is an idea.

MercenaryKnight · Aug 29, 2007, 02:17 AM // 02:17

/signed

Everyone who argues it'd make pve too easy. So what? What does making the game easy for the people who spent time to carefully plan out an entire team build have to do with you? So they finished a dungeon in 20 mins instead of an hour you did. How does that effect anyone except that team?

Make it so you'll get alot less drops taking heroes and alot more people will go to pug if theirs an incentive to go and get items.

Having 7 heroes doesn't change anything nor does it effect anyone. People say it'd draw them away from pugs, make it so pugs get more items. They already take hench and heroes anyways.

A.net has absolutely no reason to not allow 7 heroes. They just don't want to change it.

Their is only pluses to being able to have 7 heroes. No more failing from necromancers with minions, rangers with meteorshower and other nukes, monks who only use healing breeze. Nothing bad could come from allowing 7 heroes because it won't effect anyone else but them (they will have a great time beating hard places quickly with a hero team).

Not to mention, people who play at bad times have no people to party with. Or they just don't feel like getting those horrible players to fail a mission again and again.

So a.net, please make a statement as to why you don't let us have 7 heroes. Something that proves their is an actual downside. Then we can tell you how to fix it so theirs still an upside to counter that and we can all be happy with all hero teams.

Artkin · Aug 29, 2007, 02:25 AM // 02:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bride of the Atom

By thread page 8, everything has probably been said. But! Hell, I might as well, anyway. The fact is that people who prefer to play with NPCs already play with heroes/henchmen, and it's already the direction the game has headed to and settled in, if unintentionally. The inclusion of henchmen in the game has made grouping not 100% necessary from the start-- i.e. the game could have been designed as human player only. Also, the prospect of solo (but still immensely social through shared districts and chat) play was a huge draw for many people, including myself.

Considering that such an enormous amount of people already play PvE with three heroes and four henchmen, allowing seven heroes doesn't seem like such a drastic measure, especially since we have a ridiculous-long list of them available. I've only ever bothered PuGing for missions. Doing it for every single little quest in the game is too inconvenient to even consider, especially when players are spread out over such a vast map. Since I only go questing with NPCs anyway (unless some friends are on, but that doesn't happen much nowadays), it would be nice --and very fun-- to be able to customize and experiment with all of the builds instead of taking boring, static henchmen that usually suck. Micro-managing wouldn't be a problem for me since I don't use it a lot anyhow. The flagging situation could be easily improvised.

Oh god, I just wrote an essay.

Also, Meteor Shower Ranger FTW!!

BRAVO!!!!! Will ANet listen though?...no way....they still want it to be a COMMUNITY game....let's see I'm in Pogahn Passage right now looking for a group that is capable of doing the mission....huh....NOBODY....hmmmm...take my heroes/hench and get master FAST!!!!!!!!!!!!

Artkin · Aug 29, 2007, 02:32 AM // 02:32

ALSO...I have 11 chars...all of them have every hero available (except GW:EN heroes)....all heroes have ruined armor and most carry Green weapons or maxed golds. I have over 700k in gold and prob about another 2 million in gold if i sold material (diamonds, ecto, etc).

I PLAY SOLO....I have been in guilds before and had fun, but then FACTIONS ruined the guilds that I was in with all the in-fighting about faction farming, so I left and haven't joined another, I started my own guild that includes me and my brother. We work different hours though and don't get to play much together. All the other people that I use to enjoy playing with have moved onto WoW and such. So yes ANet....I'm a solo player and now will have 20+ heroes that are maxed out...yet I can pnly use 3 at a time?

MercenaryKnight · Aug 29, 2007, 02:45 AM // 02:45

(Merged by Dralspire)

I know theirs a huge thread right there but gaile might not want to sort through all those pages.

We would like an official response as to why 7 heroes are not allowed.

We are hoping that it is for a good reason as in not because (it'd make pve too easy, people wouldn't play with other people"they already do with hench+heroes").

There is no downside for the rest of the guild wars community if we decide to play solo (Like we have done with henchman). Also, anet should reward people for using 7 heroes and customizing it specifically for area xxx or dungeon xxx and using all that time and strategizing for a great build.

If your afraid so much you could give added item drops if no heroes/ hench are in a team, then people would have incentive to play pugs (I didn't come up with this idea, someone else did).

Heck, you can even semi nerf drop rates for people with full hero teams we don't care. We just want to do what you intended us to do. Some people can't be bothered to waste 30 minutes finding a group of people to do xx mission or xx quest. Sometimes hench and heroes just doesn't give us enough leeway to get through a tough area or mission.

So, let the people who solo have the opportunity to use 7 heroes instead of making us ally up with another person and their mo/n hero with minion skills.

There really is no downside to this at all. Pve= too easy for them? That should be a bonus, they spent all that time making up a good team for that situation (I thought this game was about perfect strategy and trying new builds to take on certain areas). You aren't losing people from not playing with pugs because the people who want to play with others do, the ones who don't don't play with others already.

So please gaile or someone else from a.net.

We would like a logical answer as to why this is not implemented. Not just because pve would be too easy.

Please note. I am not whining because it is not implemented. Or trying to say this in any kind of demanding and bad tone. I just am trying to prove points that it seems like the positives really outweigh the alleged negatives to this change. I have the utmost respect for a.net and know this feature most likely won't be implemented.

I would just like a true statement that would describe exactly why it is not being put in.

Omniclasm · Aug 29, 2007, 02:54 AM // 02:54

I'm just curious, all the complaints about only being able to use 3 when you have 25, if/when they change it to 7, what will you complain about then?

" Why have 25 heros to use 7 at a time? I suggest that we are allowed to swap mid-mission."

1 up and 2 down · Aug 29, 2007, 02:59 AM // 02:59

(Merged by Dralspire)

I am pretty sure she has mentioned why.

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10166467

Edit: Added thread where Gaile says why they can't make full hero teams.

Gaile Gray · Aug 29, 2007, 03:04 AM // 03:04

(Merged by Dralspire)

I stopped reading at the first few lines. I apologize, but I have read the larger thread in questions -- circular discussion and all. I've linked to it in the Community Summary. This is well and truly an issue that does not need a res cast upon it.

Within that thread, we have (I have) relayed the response and the reason for why the game does not offer all-hero parties. I totally understand that some players disagree with the designers' decision, and I know that some will continue to want to have all-hero parties. However, according to James Phinney, that is not going to happen because it is not within the design vision of the game and the game is not designed to support that mechanic. And no, the game will not be redesigned to allow this mechanic, because changing the game will then impact other elements, creating essential imbalance and disconnect of both design philosophy and logic.

In the end, there is nothing more I can say to address the question and there is absolutely no point in repeating what has already been said in the other thread(s). Thanks to 1 Up and 2 Down's link, you can read our many answers which I will not be repeating, defending, or expanding upon.

Thank you for understanding.

dwc89 · Aug 29, 2007, 03:05 AM // 03:05

(Merged by Dralspire)

I would actually like to hear a reason that makes sense. When heroes first came out I believed the limit had something to do with PvP play - since there is a limit in some areas of PvP for the entire team, this is no longer the case.

If the reason is for us to play with other people, laughable since there are so many "solo" quests, mini games, tournaments in EotN.
And did I not see "solo" builds on some of the hench we fought against in the tournament.

A change allowing seven heroes in a PvE party hurts no one and will help the ones that would like the change.

was writing before I saw response - nothing changes my post or opinion, actually Gailes response has changed my attitude. Design vision?? read above re: solo quests, etc glad I'm only getting 1 copy of EotN on release and waiting to purchase for my second account.

Omniclasm · Aug 29, 2007, 03:09 AM // 03:09

(Merged by Dralspire)

One word....

Owned

Phantom Gun · Aug 29, 2007, 03:14 AM // 03:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kas

As it is now, everyone thinks he is so much more superior to all the infidels around him that the only ones even remotely worthy of his inhuman skills are the heroes because they do exactly as simon says.
So, if every player thinks this way, how come that they all manage to beat the game with heroes? Are they all uber? How can they all be uber when clearly everyone else but them sucks big time? You know the answer, don't you? Pugs don't fail because of lack of skill. Pugs fail because overinflated egos clash like titans on a rampage.

So yes, please A-Net. Give them 7 Heroes, give them every reason to not play with others in a multiplayer game. While this is feeding their superiority complex it helps the other players. For every egomaniac drooling all over heroes, one less Singleplayer will be in the mix. And if every egomaniac is busy heroing through the game, all that remains are teamplayers or new players. Both are incredibly fun to play with. Heroes have achieved primarily one thing, take the wannabe elitist asshats out of the mix.

So yes. /signed. Give them 7 Heroes.

That made me laugh but at the same time well put. /signed for the same reason.

Zeek Aran · Aug 29, 2007, 03:19 AM // 03:19

(Merged by Dralspire)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omniclasm

One word....

Owned

Ahaha, I love Gaile.

<3 Thank you ANet for being so interlinked with your community.