Curse

Karia Mirniman · Sep 22, 2008, 12:20 PM // 12:20

My reasons against:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inner Salbat

... we're not asking for a free ride...

7 heroes would be a free ride for the player, it would also kill GW. It would be less than 7 days for the ultimate hero team build to appear on pvxwiki and too many players (evidenced by the use of Ursan) would go for that, subsequently finish the game(s) quickly and stop playing.

Personally I think 3 is enough and what we really need is more control of them and more intelligent enemies.

Teutonic Paladin · Sep 22, 2008, 12:34 PM // 12:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karia Mirniman

My reasons against:

7 heroes would be a free ride for the player, it would also kill GW. It would be less than 7 days for the ultimate hero team build to appear on pvxwiki and too many players (evidenced by the use of Ursan) would go for that, subsequently finish the game(s) quickly and stop playing.

Personally I think 3 is enough and what we really need is more control of them and more intelligent enemies.

Every time ANet tries to update AI Behavior (that isn't skill specific) they add debilitating bugs that make it harder to play. If there really is a population of players waiting to beat the game and then quit, what the hell have they been doing this whole time? Sitting in Gate of Madness or THK chatting with the henchmen? If there's anyone playing this game purely to beat it, who hasn't already beat it, they're probably not doing anything in the first place; so who cares if they get a leg up?

EDIT: THIS THREAD IS A YEAR OLD!

Cobalt · Sep 22, 2008, 12:37 PM // 12:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karia Mirniman

My reasons against:

7 heroes would be a free ride for the player, it would also kill GW. It would be less than 7 days for the ultimate hero team build to appear on pvxwiki and too many players (evidenced by the use of Ursan) would go for that, subsequently finish the game(s) quickly and stop playing.

Personally I think 3 is enough and what we really need is more control of them and more intelligent enemies.

Nah people can already get to level 20 in less than a day and they still play, if anything heroes would allow players to progress further in the game do dungeons and areas that a regular H&H team will not allow them to and in HM to boot. It would be particularly beneficial for classes that can not get in to groups easily.

Ursan was nerfed because it was being used to easy mode DoA now very few go there any more. If we had seven heroes, then players who would never get picked for a the seldom pug that goes in there would finally get an opportunity to try that area and other areas like it.

Inner Salbat · Sep 22, 2008, 12:42 PM // 12:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karia Mirniman

7 heroes would be a free ride for the player, it would also kill GW. It would be less than 7 days for the ultimate hero team build to appear on pvxwiki and too many players (evidenced by the use of Ursan) would go for that, subsequently finish the game(s) quickly and stop playing.

Personally I think 3 is enough and what we really need is more control of them and more intelligent enemies.

This old nut shell it's already hard enough dealing with the Heroes we've got 7 is going to make it harder to play still, you can PvXwiki all you like it isn't going to teach you a damn about how to actually play with it, took me awhile to learn how to play with sabway, if anything putting up with there insanity will be more of a challenge.

Your not going to get more intelligent enemies because you'd get a crying thread that you cannot beat X or Y, either way when you play a game you should get better at it in the end it will be easy when you add content that again challenges that group of people again, you end up isolating players that are less skilled at the game, until you get to a point your game is unplayable by anyone but the very elite.

The key to game creation is progress while someone feels there getting better at the game they play, when the start feeling that it's hopeless they play less and less, until they forget about your product completely and move on.

Destro Maniak · Sep 22, 2008, 01:07 PM // 13:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inner Salbat

This old nut shell it's already hard enough dealing with the Heroes we've got 7 is going to make it harder to play still, you can PvXwiki all you like it isn't going to teach you a damn about how to actually play with it, took me awhile to learn how to play with sabway, if anything putting up with there insanity will be more of a challenge.

Your not going to get more intelligent enemies because you'd get a crying thread that you cannot beat X or Y, either way when you play a game you should get better at it in the end it will be easy when you add content that again challenges that group of people again, you end up isolating players that are less skilled at the game, until you get to a point your game is unplayable by anyone but the very elite.

The key to game creation is progress while someone feels there getting better at the game they play, when the start feeling that it's hopeless they play less and less, until they forget about your product completely and move on.

if it took you time to use sabs you arent a good player because sabs is the perfect definition of cookie cutter
I sabbed EVERYTHING vanqed EVERYWHERE, and had no problem
mainly because most skills are cooperating well, NO need of micromanage

some builds dont need micromanage,
EVEN IF THEY DID:
Im sure that a retarded ogden will be much powerfull than allesia for christ sake
Dont you thing

and a human monk is not an option because how ou imagine youll find a human monk thatll come vanq with ya ?

pamelf · Sep 22, 2008, 01:08 PM // 13:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

So use heroes and hench. Saying there is no pugs is not an argument, because you can still play solo. If anything you have to argue why Anet should give players 7 heroes as opposed to 3 heroes and 4 hench.

Read over my posts in the last 89 pages.

I don't think it's helpful to repeat myself too much. I try only to reply to a post when I have something new-ish to contribute. I have raised other points as well, that was simply the one I raised in that post.

I do play solo. Have since the game started. Just because we can H/H isn't a reason NOT to add 7 heroes to turn your argument against your own point. For the points as to why anet SHOULD add 7 heroes look over my other posts, and Bryant's early posts as well.

The argument for the time being has turned a little circular thanks to JD, but the early posts are still useful and an interesting read from both sides.

Avarre · Sep 22, 2008, 01:12 PM // 13:12

Are people really saying that playing H/H is somehow more complicated than flag 'n win?

I don't think even more opportunity should be given to players who don't know how to play the game. The more AI you give a team, then the less player capability is needed, and for a game that has so much potential depth and complexity, you want the players to need to use it in order to get the most out of the game design.

As it is, most players never get better because they have access to well-tuned-skillbar AI and one-dimensional supercharge skills.

Inner Salbat · Sep 22, 2008, 01:21 PM // 13:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Destro Maniak

if it took you time to use sabs you arent a good player because sabs is the perfect definition of cookie cutter
I sabbed EVERYTHING vanqed EVERYWHERE, and had no problem
mainly because most skills are cooperating well, NO need of micromanage

and a human monk is not an option because how ou imagine youll find a human monk thatll come vanq with ya ?

Who are you to judge what sort of level of player I am? I still learn't how to use it, and vanquished all the explorable areas, and you cannot have used sabway in NF in the mission at least because they FORCE you to disband the build.

And that character that did all that plus the other 14 titles she has max? MONK!

zwei2stein · Sep 22, 2008, 02:44 PM // 14:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Are people really saying that playing H/H is somehow more complicated than flag 'n win?

I don't think even more opportunity should be given to players who don't know how to play the game. The more AI you give a team, then the less player capability is needed, and for a game that has so much potential depth and complexity, you want the players to need to use it in order to get the most out of the game design.

As it is, most players never get better because they have access to well-tuned-skillbar AI and one-dimensional supercharge skills.

This is so only because you can win PvE by playing buildwars with builds that require only button mash and still win.

AI Makes this easier only because it will take build you need to win without question and because it can play without reality interfeering (lag, phone-brbs, etc.)

This is problem of game design which does not have enough frenzies but has overabundance of discords (that is the currently-at-rage thing, right). As long as objectivelly powerfull skillbar can be used by my cat walking over keyboard, it is not really AI in party issue but more of issue that people do not really need anything beyond that.

Also, i don't really find it surprisng that one players suckiness is made up for with 7 other party members. You had that in pugs all the time and those people didn't really learn a lot either - except that they learned to spam for "lfg pro party, no noobs" and dented to blame someone else for their mistakes, just like they would blame AI.

If player wants to improve and learn, he will learn even with AI as those hero builds set examples thanks to being made by good players and are reputable enough to make people rethink their old position.

sixofone · Sep 22, 2008, 02:56 PM // 14:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

but the early posts are still useful and an interesting read from both sides.

True!

And the argument against still seems to come down to: it would be bad for PUGging. It would discourage people teaming together to do PvE. (PvP is, obviously, unaffected by this.) Also, that it would make the game "too easy".

The latter argument has been refuted because an all Hero H/H team would, theoretically, be less powerful than an all human 8-player team. (In actuality, as most of us here have experienced, but not all, an H&H team was able to do quests and missions easier, and in less time, than a PUG - though that's a reflection of people's skill level and ability to coordinate rather than H&H being "superior." Henchman, typically, have sucky builds.)

So, if an all human team isn't considered OP, if that doesn't make the game "too easy", then how can 7 heroes be OP?

Sorry, but I still don't buy the whole "7 heroes will kill the game" argument. Not when so many people have stated the challenges they experience trying to get a PUG together, or how their guild is drying up, or any other of a number of signs that the game is starting to dwindle anyway.

Adding the use of 7 heroes appeals to a lot of people, and mostly because of the #1 reason to play anyway: it would be FUN!

Too bad ANet is so set against it...

Amy Awien · Sep 22, 2008, 03:56 PM // 15:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Are people really saying that playing H/H is somehow more complicated than flag 'n win?

Let me see you 'flag 'n win' you way through the games and all the interesting dungeons and elite area's. You can't, you'll fail.

With H/H (and heroes alone) you setup their skillbars, equip them, flag them at the proper positions and point them at their targets. In a PuG you have only your own character and it's skillbar to control. Now, how and why is playing in a PuG more complicated then doing the same mission with H/H?

Quote:

I don't think even more opportunity should be given to players who don't know how to play the game.

Indeed, in an 8 man team, one mediocre or bad performing player will not make the group fail. But should that not be addressed by reducing the size of the team, making each player's performance more important (and adjust the challenges accordingly) and not by gimping half of the team.

Quote:

The more AI you give a team, then the less player capability is needed, and for a game that has so much potential depth and complexity, you want the players to need to use it in order to get the most out of the game design.

Guild Wars is about creating character builds optimized to be combined and used in a team. Frankly that part of the design is expressed more clearly in AI teams then in the average PuG and thus it demonstrates this aspect of the game better.

Quote:

As it is, most players never get better because they have access to well-tuned-skillbar AI and one-dimensional supercharge skills.

Heroes don't have any of these one-dimensional supercharged skills.

Buster · Sep 22, 2008, 04:12 PM // 16:12

I said no because you do not want to completely shutdown the social aspect of the game. Bad enough people were complaining about the lack of socialism with players because of heroes in the first place. Allowing 7 would be madness

JDRyder · Sep 22, 2008, 04:34 PM // 16:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inner Salbat

This old nut shell it's already hard enough dealing with the Heroes we've got 7 is going to make it harder to play still, you can PvXwiki all you like it isn't going to teach you a damn about how to actually play with it, took me awhile to learn how to play with sabway, if anything putting up with there insanity will be more of a challenge.

plz tell me how the game would be harder if you added 7 heros, the game got easier when they added 3. Micro is not a reason cause you dont have to micro anything about heros that you didnt have to micro with henchmen to win, only now you can give them a build thats good.

Inner Salbat · Sep 22, 2008, 05:08 PM // 17:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster

I said no because you do not want to completely shutdown the social aspect of the game. Bad enough people were complaining about the lack of socialism with players because of heroes in the first place. Allowing 7 would be madness

This is a odd concept it dawned on me, what we have in this game is socialites and anti-social people, neither is wrong it's just how we're wired together in out brains.

Using computers is by and large an anti-social thing to do, you might think that entering a virtual world and interacting with pixels on the screen is being social, it is not entirely social still even with teamspeak/vent even with audio it only adds one aspect of what it is to be social; to be truly social I'm sorry but your going to have to get out from behind your monitor and away from the computer and go and see real people in real life.

Even forums aren't social because you cannot tell if I'm pulling the finger right now, or looking at my screen with a dead pan face concentrating on what I'm thinking, hence GW is no more social than an advanced IRC chat room.

There is no social aspect of the game when your talking about PuGs it's just random people bumping into each other in a virtual world by chance doing the same thing, you do that thing then you all go your separate ways that isn't socialism that an agreed all of us need each other to do this then I'm done with you.

Besides this playing with people when you find that rare nugget group that does work well together make the game far to easy.

JDRyder · Sep 22, 2008, 05:19 PM // 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inner Salbat

This is a odd concept it dawned on me, what we have in this game is socialites and anti-social people, neither is wrong it's just how we're wired together in out brains.

Using computers is by and large an anti-social thing to do, you might think that entering a virtual world and interacting with pixels on the screen is being social, it is not entirely social still even with teamspeak/vent even with audio it only adds one aspect of what it is to be social; to be truly social I'm sorry but your going to have to get out from behind your monitor and away from the computer and go and see real people in real life.

Even forums aren't social because you cannot tell if I'm pulling the finger right now, or looking at my screen with a dead pan face concentrating on what I'm thinking, hence GW is no more social than an advanced IRC chat room.

There is no social aspect of the game when your talking about PuGs it's just random people bumping into each other in a virtual world by chance doing the same thing, you do that thing then you all go your separate ways that isn't socialism that an agreed all of us need each other to do this then I'm done with you.

Besides this playing with people when you find that rare nugget group that does work well together make the game far to easy.

If you meant any of that, you would not have posted it. Also Ive met some good people in pugs who i am still friend with.

sixofone · Sep 22, 2008, 06:25 PM // 18:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster

I said no because you do not want to completely shutdown the social aspect of the game. Bad enough people were complaining about the lack of socialism with players because of heroes in the first place. Allowing 7 would be madness

People who H&H still socialize. LOL We share builds, buy/sell items, party, dance, etc.

Bryant Again · Sep 22, 2008, 06:34 PM // 18:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRyder

plz tell me how the game would be harder if you added 7 heros, the game got easier when they added 3.

Easier for whom, everybody?? If you say "yes", then wrong.

sixofone · Sep 22, 2008, 07:02 PM // 19:02

Well, if it got easier, it would have to be because heroes/H&H > PUGs.

But, again, if 1 player + 7 heroes can't beat 8 real players, then something is wrong. Right?

So, 7 heroes would make the game easier for those who play solo simply because we wouldn't have sucky henchmen. If they improved the henchman bars, people wouldn't want 7 heroes as badly. We'd still want it just because its fun to customize and play around with builds and shit. But, just not as badly.

DreamWind · Sep 22, 2008, 07:27 PM // 19:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

Read over my posts in the last 89 pages.

I don't think it's helpful to repeat myself too much. I try only to reply to a post when I have something new-ish to contribute. I have raised other points as well, that was simply the one I raised in that post.

I read most of the thread. My problem with your earlier post (and many other posts in this thread) is that people make it sound like since the population is dying (or will die) that is the reason they should add 7 heroes. The argument is since there won't be many people to PuG with they should add 7 heroes.

That argument is bad because adding 7 heroes has nothing to do with being able to play without other people. It is already possible to solo. You have to argue why 7 is better than 3+4, and saying 7 would allow you to solo is not an argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inner Salbat

As we've said many times we're not asking for a free ride, put it in the online store they directly get benefited.

Ok now you are talking a completely different topic altogether. If they added this to the online store there would be outrage from lots of people. You think they want outrage? I am personally in the camp that selling anything in game in the online store (particularly this) is ridiculous, but that is another thread altogether.

lord of all tyria · Sep 22, 2008, 08:20 PM // 20:20

What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?

You get 90 page forum threads that go nowhere.