Curse

Dev121 · Dec 02, 2007, 02:14 PM // 14:14

If you cant do everything in this game in normal mode with 3 heroes and 4 henchmen then you really suck and 7 heroes wont help you because youll probably give every single one of them frenzy.

You should get 7 in HM just because some areas and missions are very painful and would help to have more suppourt. I also agree with the the fact that having 25 is stupildy pointless, anet just makes it sound cool. 25 HEROES! They never say, YOU CAN ONLY USE 3 THOU.

Rahja cheer up, its only a thread. Go listen to u2 and itll take you out of this dark phase.

Isileth · Dec 02, 2007, 02:18 PM // 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeVaNeY121

If you cant do everything in this game in normal mode with 3 heroes and 4 henchmen then you really suck and 7 heroes wont help you because youll probably give every single one of them frenzy.

Once again it isnt about difficulty. Its about being able to try out new builds and playstyles without being limited by henchmen.

mage767 · Dec 02, 2007, 02:38 PM // 14:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeVaNeY121

If you cant do everything in this game in normal mode with 3 heroes and 4 henchmen then you really suck and 7 heroes wont help you because youll probably give every single one of them frenzy.

You should get 7 in HM just because some areas and missions are very painful and would help to have more suppourt. I also agree with the the fact that having 25 is stupildy pointless, anet just makes it sound cool. 25 HEROES! They never say, YOU CAN ONLY USE 3 THOU.

Rahja cheer up, its only a thread. Go listen to u2 and itll take you out of this dark phase.

Exactly. Couldn't find a better reason myself. Furthermore, 7-heroes should be something only people who proved themselves pvE wise could use.

Maybe if we add +1 hero for every Protector title, it would be even fairer. So a person with all 3 protector titles gets +3 heroes in addition to the current 3. The last hero slot is usable only on beating an elite mission (could be one of following only: DoA or Slavers since these are elite areas of hero-supplement chapters).

Ofcourse, ideas like this are nice to read, but quite difficult to implement - which is why ANET won't do it - they are busy with other things.

Dev121 · Dec 02, 2007, 02:40 PM // 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by mage767

Exactly. Couldn't find a better reason myself. Furthermore, 7-heroes should be something only people who proved themselves pvE wise could use.

Maybe if we add +1 hero for every Protector title, it would be even fairer. So a person with all 3 protector titles gets +3 heroes in addition to the current 3. The last hero is obtainable only on beating an elite mission (could be any one: DoA, Slavers, FOW, UW, Deep, Urgoz).

Ofcourse, ideas like this are nice to read, but more difficult to implement - which is why ANET won't do it - they are busy with other things.

The problem is when you buy a game, you expect it to be run well. So they should always have this game on top of a priority list, or they should never have sold it.

I can work with 3, 7 would be nice... even any more than 3 but if push comes to shove ill do with 3. I'd rather take 3 heroes and Rahja because he is the new thread pwnzers.

Isileth · Dec 02, 2007, 02:46 PM // 14:46

Just incase my other posts had a magical dont read me tag on them ill say it again.

Its not about difficulty.

It shouldnt be about proving yourself or getting titles. Its a case of what makes the game more fun. 7 heroes would allow for a lot more variety in builds and playstyles.

freekedoutfish · Dec 02, 2007, 03:31 PM // 15:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeVaNeY121

If you cant do everything in this game in normal mode with 3 heroes and 4 henchmen then you really suck and 7 heroes wont help you because youll probably give every single one of them frenzy.

You should get 7 in HM just because some areas and missions are very painful and would help to have more suppourt. I also agree with the the fact that having 25 is stupildy pointless, anet just makes it sound cool. 25 HEROES! They never say, YOU CAN ONLY USE 3 THOU.

Rahja cheer up, its only a thread. Go listen to u2 and itll take you out of this dark phase.

So im not allowed to use the same arguement for NM?

Some areas in NM arent impossible but they are painfull and not fun to do, and 7 heroes would help that.

Dev121 · Dec 02, 2007, 05:17 PM // 17:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by freekedoutfish

So im not allowed to use the same arguement for NM?

Some areas in NM arent impossible but they are painfull and not fun to do, and 7 heroes would help that.

Dis-regarding Elite Missions here, whats hard in NM that cant be hero/henched?

If something isnt fun mate, dont do it. I'm lucky I think as I enjoy all of the game in the right amounts but if there was something I despise then I wouldnt even bother doing it. If its a mission, I'd pay someone and so on.

I think it should work like this:
NM 3 Heroes
HM 7 Heroes
Elite Areas: Be able to fill your party up with them (Not Sorrows Thou).

Sleeper Service · Dec 02, 2007, 06:10 PM // 18:10

the "7Heroes in HM only" was originally suggested as a type of compromise regarding Anets "it would make the game too easy" explanation.

Not that that explanation makes any sense but it seemed like a reasonable suggestion in the hope of opening up some dialogue.

freekedoutfish · Dec 02, 2007, 07:35 PM // 19:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeVaNeY121

Dis-regarding Elite Missions here, whats hard in NM that cant be hero/henched?

If something isnt fun mate, dont do it. I'm lucky I think as I enjoy all of the game in the right amounts but if there was something I despise then I wouldnt even bother doing it. If its a mission, I'd pay someone and so on.

I think it should work like this:
NM 3 Heroes
HM 7 Heroes
Elite Areas: Be able to fill your party up with them (Not Sorrows Thou).

You didnt answer my question.

You argued its ok to use 7 heroes in HM beacuse you might find something a pain to do, so I dont see the difference with using them to do something which is a pain in NM.

I could then argue that if you find something a pain in HM, then "dont do it" and dont ask for 7 heroes to help!

Theres absolutely no difference!

Dev121 · Dec 02, 2007, 09:22 PM // 21:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by freekedoutfish

You didnt answer my question.

You argued its ok to use 7 heroes in HM beacuse you might find something a pain to do, so I dont see the difference with using them to do something which is a pain in NM.

I could then argue that if you find something a pain in HM, then "dont do it" and dont ask for 7 heroes to help!

Theres absolutely no difference!

Good Point. I'll re-explain, it was abit confusing.

My point is that if you want 7 heroes in normal mode for stuff that is a pain, then why bother doing it? Why not just not do it then not have to worry about having extra help, if you want the help to make the game easier then I dont think you should be just worrying about the heroes.

Hard mode is a different case, its meant to be hard but in some situations with hero/hench its frustrating so I wont do it (Vanquishing, yeah right..

)
but with the inclusion of 7 heroes it would make it easier and therefore more enjoyable, it would still be a challange due to half done AI but not soo hard itll make me want to smash my key board up.

If you argue that 7 heroes in Normal Mode will make it more fun then you just want the game to be easier, in Hard Mode I want it to be less annoying in some situations: AI in firestorm ect in HM = No fun. In NM = Not much problem. Going on further in you think something in normal mode is frustrating and you cant do it then adding heroes is just a cheap excuse, in hard mode its to make it more do-able. I know people have vanquished everywhere with heroes but firstly: I get bored easily doing the same thing and secondly I dont have the patience.

Any less confusing? I dont understand it either but in a nutshell:

If you cant do something in normal mode then you shouldnt ask for more heroes, in Hard Mode due to the nature of some areas then it should be acceptable = Move up the scale = More assistance but with the AI in heroes not perfect then its still a challange.

freekedoutfish · Dec 03, 2007, 01:17 PM // 13:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeVaNeY121

Any less confusing? I dont understand it either but in a nutshell:

If you cant do something in normal mode then you shouldnt ask for more heroes, in Hard Mode due to the nature of some areas then it should be acceptable = Move up the scale = More assistance but with the AI in heroes not perfect then its still a challange.

The problem with your "nutshell" conclusion is that your talking from your own perspective; which is biased. I'm not saying thats a problem though, because we all do it. Just look at all historical documents over the last 2 thousand years.

But you have to take that into concideration when sharing an idea.

You may feel the stuff in NM is inherantly "easy" and doesnt justify the use of 7 heroes because of that. While other players will feel certain aspects of NM are actually "hard" or "frustrating".

You may feel the stuff in HM is inherantly "hard" and doest justify the aid of 7 heroes. While other players (like myself) might feel most areas of HM are actually pretty easy and its only rare times when it gets hard.

But regardless of whether I feel NM or HM are both easy, I am still realistic in knowing not everything feels that. Some people find both modes hard for their own reasons!

The use of 7 heroes in both would be to aid those players, and you can't argue not to allow it simply because you personally feel NM is easy enough.

Also I may find NM easy and most of HM easy, but there are still certain situations where 7 heroes would help in both IMO. It may be a situation where you simply cannot find a team at all because the area is empty and while henches are capable of doing the job, their not "fun" to use or they make it more complicated then it should be due to their down-falls.

Its not about making areas easier in NM or HM with using 7 heroes, its about giving us full access to superiour AI instead of mixing superiour AI with redundant AI.

Its obserd that we have far superiour and more functional AI in the form of heroes, being mixed with henches which are (and it cant be denied) stupid by comparison and have no more functionality then "attack this creature" or "stand over here as a group".

We're being expected to use substandard tools along side far better ones. It would just make the game more fun and alot more enjoyable and meet a need that is not being satisfied!

Bryant Again · Dec 03, 2007, 01:32 PM // 13:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by freekedoutfish

Its obserd that we have far superiour and more functional AI in the form of heroes, being mixed with henches which are (and it cant be denied) stupid by comparison and have no more functionality then "attack this creature" or "stand over here as a group".

The AI in GW - for everything really - is incredibly subpar and remarkably poor. If you give a hero an interrupt skill they're most likely to interrupt all of the wrong things. The difference with heroes and henchies is that you can control that to a certain extent. With a broadhead arrow ranger, you can tell them when to use it so they don't waste it on say a warrior.

To sum up: ALL AI in the game is stupid. If you give a hero the same build as a henchmen from Prophecies, they'd most likely act the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freekedoutfish

We're being expected to use substandard tools along side far better ones. It would just make the game more fun and alot more enjoyable and meet a need that is not being satisfied!

But there is a chance that meeting our need could hinder the need of others. That's not something I'm willing to risk when we already can do pretty much anything in the game with heroes and hench.

Isileth · Dec 03, 2007, 01:36 PM // 13:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

But there is a chance that meeting our need could hinder the need of others. That's not something I'm willing to risk when we already can do pretty much anything in the game with heroes and hench.

You can easily flip that around and say because of the need of pug groups we are being denied.

The fact is we know there are people who prefer to pug, hell we know there are people who refuse to use henchmen. There will always be people to pug with.

This major impact on pugging some people are predicting I just dont see happening.

Personette · Dec 03, 2007, 01:38 PM // 13:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by freekedoutfish

The problem with your "nutshell" conclusion is that your talking from your own perspective; which is biased. I'm not saying thats a problem though, because we all do it. Just look at all historical documents over the last 2 thousand years.

...

Good answer.

It's really a trip to read Devaney's responses and see that he thinks he's making statements of fact, and doesn't realize he's asking for the entire game to be balanced around his own individual skill level. The bulk of GW players, which are presumably somewhat less skilled than Devaney, would make the exact same arguments he does in order to justify having 7 heroes in NM.

Anyhow, I will swallow my pride and admit that I avoid most of Asura territory because I just get slaughtered. I might actually go there if i had seven heroes. Same deal with the burning forest in the Charr lands, it'll be a while before I go back there after the last disastrous attempt I made.

Everything in the game becomes easy with enough repetition, and that may be how people totally lose perspective about how hard it can be the first time.

Bryant Again · Dec 03, 2007, 01:47 PM // 13:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

You can easily flip that around and say because of the need of pug groups we are being denied.

Denied what, fun? You can play through all of the chapters on hard mode with heroes and henchies. You can be successful with them in any part of the game. The only thing that we're being denied is the satisfaction of being able to customize a whole party of 8.

You've stated that it's not about being successful, and yes I know it's not about that at all. But I think that would be the one thing that ANet would be majorly concerned about. As far as we're still able to progress through the game with h/h, then I don't think they'd care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

This major impact on pugging some people are predicting I just dont see happening.

Major or minor doesn't really matter to me, any hit is a hit.

It's pretty much personal preference this far in, anyways.

Isileth · Dec 03, 2007, 01:58 PM // 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Denied what, fun?

Fun, different playstyles, better AI etc.
What would puggers be denied? Nothing. It could just take an extra few mins to get a team together. The actual pugging experience wouldnt be limited in anyway. Currently going solo is limited.

It would be a minor knock to a non critical aspect of pugging, to give a major gain to the main most critical aspect of going solo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Major or minor doesn't really matter to me, any hit is a hit.

What you have to look at is the gain in comparison to the hit.
In comparison its a small reduction in party forming time over allowing solo players to have all the advantages of 7 heroes.

Etta · Dec 03, 2007, 02:06 PM // 14:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveller

When did Rahja become so bitter?

When he's been listening to "Love will tear us apart" on repeat, 10 days in a row.

As for the 7 heroes, both the pro-pugs and pro-heores know that will never happen, Grey said it, didn't she? Do you really think they have time to do a major GW1 stuff anymore? They've already set their ban machine, nerf machine, weekend event machine, to auto-pilot now.

freekedoutfish · Dec 03, 2007, 02:14 PM // 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Denied what, fun? You can play through all of the chapters on hard mode with heroes and henchies. You can be successful with them in any part of the game. The only thing that we're being denied is the satisfaction of being able to customize a whole party of 8.

Lets look at this from the perspective of GWs being promoted as a skill and tact based game.

We have an area in GWEN which is constantly on fire, in the south east part of the char lands called the burning something which is dominated by fire creatures. Lets say you cant find a human PUG to fight through that area, whether it be to access the dungeon, to vanquish or just for fun.

What options are you left with? It leaves you using 3 heroes and 4 henches.

That means you could equip 3 specialised hero water elementals or bring 2 fire elementals and a ranger with winter, or something along those lines. That then means you have to bring monks and your stuck with just 2 monk henches to do the job.

That then leaves 2 slots!

I'm not 100% certain what henches you get from the nearest outpost to there, but can you honestly say your using the best skill or tact you could do by just filling those slots with "what ever you can"!

Does that area offer water or fire elemental henches? Does it offer any henches which are of use to fight a huge mob of fire creatures? Somehow I wouldnt expect so. Henches tend to have very wide ranging builds to suit all situations, but nothing specialised.

You may not "need" a specialised team to fight a heavy load of fire creatures, but its one of the harder areas to fight in. Where is the tact or skill when you can only equip 3 specialised heroes for that instance and you are stuck bringing none specialised henches that might not fit the need?

7 heroes would actually promote this idea of using skill and tact ingame. At the minute, if you cant find a pug, you are using 4 henches who could be equipped with anything and using their skills in any manor they see fit.

There would be more skill in setting up a team of 7 heroes to fight a certain area or boss, or instance compared to just thinking "ok I have no choice but to use 4 of these henches and none are exactly what I need, but I have no choice".

This is evident in alot of areas in factions where you might only get on monk in certain outposts, or you get a protector and not a healer. Its not always clear whether a necro hench is curses, blood or death. I have no idea what the difference is between a guardian or a brawler hench.

Where is the skill in that? Your using AI that could be using anything!

The henches may do the job, but there is nothing skilful about it.

Isileth · Dec 03, 2007, 02:24 PM // 14:24

Well what Gaile said was it wasnt in their design vision. Which is a "we dont want to do anything with GW anymore". Its an extremely weak excuse, especially when GW2 isnt around and GW1 will be supported long after that anyways.

They also said they wouldnt be adding extra storage or a party search.
The fact is 7 heroes isnt a major change, if we asked for them without heroes ever being implemented then yes it would be.
But the heroes system is already in place. It would only need updating.

Also when GW2 comes out quite obviousely a huge portion of the playerbase is going to to move over. How do you think pugging is going to work then?

The only way players will be able to do most areas will be solo play.
Now not only will people still be buying and playing GW at this point but it will also reflect on GW2.

However GW2 is still a fair way off and keeping players interested will result in more players to move onto GW2. Now adding 7 heroes is a nice easy way to do that, since everything is already there it doesnt require as much resources as other changed.

Bryant Again · Dec 03, 2007, 04:30 PM // 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

What would puggers be denied? Nothing. It could just take an extra few mins to get a team together.

Time is a *huge* factor when it comes to PUGs. Not everyone is so patient. Making it take longer when it already is somewhat difficult would not help in the slightest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

The actual pugging experience wouldnt be limited in anyway. Currently going solo is limited.

And if soloing was unlimited how limited would pugging become in terms of finding people? There is a balance to maintain, and so far it's been working.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

What you have to look at is the gain in comparison to the hit.
In comparison its a small reduction in party forming time over allowing solo players to have all the advantages of 7 heroes.

We still don't know how hard the hit would be. If we were sure that little would happen then yes, I'd say go for it. But we have no clue, only ideas and "what we believe" would happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freekedoutfish

The henches may do the job, but there is nothing skilful about it.

That's only half of your team though. And even though having to take a henchie isn't "skillful," as you had put it, it's still quite a challenge (fun to some, not to others) building your heroes around your henchies.

To take a snip out of Isileth's post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

Also when GW2 comes out quite obviousely a huge portion of the playerbase is going to to move over. How do you think pugging is going to work then?

Could be rather poor and it'll do either of two things: 1. People play solo or 2. People buy GW2. Pretty nasty move, aye?