Curse

zwei2stein · Jul 31, 2009, 02:19 PM // 14:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by own age myname

Kind of sad that to be good at the game you need all campaigns. I remember Anet saying only have 1 campaign you could get into anything easily (or something along those lines).

Oh, you most definitely can finish any content you have access to while only owning campaign it is located in. Otherwise game would fall apart quite fast because people would get pissed off game that "requires you to buy other stuff to play". If you know how to play you are even going to breeze it.

They are useful to get certain combos, but those are not required by game itself.

You need those campaigns to be competitive as far as PvE farming goes because players make those cross campaigns builds mandatory themselves.

---

There is only one instance where cross campaign is required: third room in Urgoz.

own age myname · Jul 31, 2009, 02:32 PM // 14:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Oh, you most definitely can finish any content you have access to while only owning campaign it is located in. Otherwise game would fall apart quite fast because people would get pissed off game that "requires you to buy other stuff to play". If you know how to play you are even going to breeze it.

They are useful to get certain combos, but those are not required by game itself.

You need those campaigns to be competitive as far as PvE farming goes because players make those cross campaigns builds mandatory themselves.

---

There is only one instance where cross campaign is required: third room in Urgoz.

I'd like to see you get into competitive pvp with only one campaign though.

I do agree you can pve with one campaign though, just a bit harder.

TottWriter · Jul 31, 2009, 02:48 PM // 14:48

Realistically, if they gave you the option of 7 heroes, they would seriously have to nerf them initially. Like, take away their armour and make you level them all from scratch. Maybe also make their skill pools independent of each other. Otherwise it would be like giving you an army with infinite resources.

Bryant Again · Jul 31, 2009, 10:41 PM // 22:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I found it to be the part of the game that made it unique and awesome. To each his own I guess.

Co-op these days certainly isn't unique, but it is awesome. Left 4 Dead is a wonderful example showing how much enjoyment you can find in a cooperative setting.

But L4D's co-op also isn't restricted in the same sense Guild Wars is. Imagine if you couldn't join games mid-progress in L4D, and if when a player left his character disappeared instead of being replaced by a different player or played by a bot. Sounds painful already. Then up the number of survivors required to 8 and the pain can multiply.

That's Guild Wars for you, and that's just part of it. Factor in GW not having a global search system and I can really sympathize with those shunning the PvE cooperative component of the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Either way, I believe Anet didn't intend the game to have such an emphasis on solo play. Multiplayer PvP was the major emphasis originally. I suppose you can argue they SHOULD have had more of a solo intention, but I'm sure they didn't.

Multiplayer should always be the encouraged playstyle.

But the only thing that should be encouraging it is enjoyment, not complete limitation.

Lishy · Jul 31, 2009, 10:56 PM // 22:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by TottWriter

Realistically, if they gave you the option of 7 heroes, they would seriously have to nerf them initially. Like, take away their armour and make you level them all from scratch. Maybe also make their skill pools independent of each other. Otherwise it would be like giving you an army with infinite resources.

Oh, gee. I can't imagine how powerful a full team of 8 coordinated humans on ventrillo are.

I hate to be rude, but you suggestion is quite retarded.
Heroes are underpowered by the fact they run on ai and can't use pve skills.

Daesu · Aug 01, 2009, 02:12 AM // 02:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by TottWriter

Realistically, if they gave you the option of 7 heroes, they would seriously have to nerf them initially. Like, take away their armour and make you level them all from scratch. Maybe also make their skill pools independent of each other. Otherwise it would be like giving you an army with infinite resources.

7 well co-ordinated humans > 7 heroes anyday. Which is why the SC teams are human teams. 24 PvE skills > 3 PvE skills and Shadow Form abuse > any hero build, enough said.

If you want to nerf something overpowered, you should start with the full human teams.

Lishy · Aug 01, 2009, 02:28 AM // 02:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kain Fz

Oh, gee. I can't imagine how powerful a full team of 8 coordinated humans on ventrillo are.

I hate to be rude, but you suggestion is quite retarded.
Heroes are underpowered by the fact they run on ai and can't use pve skills.

I want to stress this post to qqers that heroes are op or make the game too easy.

R_Frost · Aug 01, 2009, 02:30 AM // 02:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by makosi

If they do do it, it will probably cost us $9.99 or £6.99 per extra hero allowed in our characters' parties.

:-(

i would almost consider paying if they did that. most of the time for me just 1 maybe 2 extra heros bringing the total to 4 or 5 would be more then enough.

Lishy · Aug 01, 2009, 02:41 AM // 02:41

I'd buy 3 slots and take zho as my 7th hero.
She's so pwn and sexy <3

Best henchman in the game. One of the few I'm proud to take on my team since she's actually not too bad in combat and gets the job done excellently.

Pocketmancer · Aug 01, 2009, 07:15 PM // 19:15

7 heroes probably wouldn't matter to me too much considering I'd probably still log on my second account, throw on 3 extra Necro heroes, enter a zone, and log that account out. Of course, I'd probably end up trying to make some balanced teams at first if they did allow for 7 heroes though.

BlackSephir · Aug 01, 2009, 08:50 PM // 20:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by TottWriter

Realistically, if they gave you the option of 7 heroes, they would seriously have to nerf them initially. Like, take away their armour and make you level them all from scratch. Maybe also make their skill pools independent of each other. Otherwise it would be like giving you an army with infinite resources.

How about you go, level up and buy armour and weapons for all your 7 party members, huh, sweetheart?

Lishy · Aug 01, 2009, 08:50 PM // 20:50

Over 120 pages and almost 1100 votes in favor.
Come on anet. Pleeeeease implement 7 heroes, possibly with PvE skills

TottWriter · Aug 01, 2009, 09:40 PM // 21:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSephir

How about you go, level up and buy armour and weapons for all your 7 party members, huh, sweetheart?

I wasn't saying it as though that would be the most wonderful implementation from our perspective as players. I was simply extrapolating; given that pretty much everyone assumes they won't do this because it would kill pugs, implementing a 7-hero system with most heroes having max armour and a large(ish) cache of skills is never going to happen.

What I was saying (and didn't explain well) is that they only way I could ever see them giving 7-hero parties is if they took away with the other hand.

Improvavel · Aug 02, 2009, 12:02 PM // 12:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by TottWriter

I wasn't saying it as though that would be the most wonderful implementation from our perspective as players. I was simply extrapolating; given that pretty much everyone assumes they won't do this because it would kill pugs, implementing a 7-hero system with most heroes having max armour and a large(ish) cache of skills is never going to happen.

What I was saying (and didn't explain well) is that they only way I could ever see them giving 7-hero parties is if they took away with the other hand.

And since when does max armor, max weapons and large pool of skills matter to crush the early PvE-mid PvE?

On my new account (and again I'm playing with a friend with also a new account, so 2players+6heroes) my heroes running with 2 and even 3 empty skill slots, no runes and pickup weapons will slaughter everything in their path.

The main difference in early mid game between heroes and henchmen is that you don't need to pull carefully.

Late game you build your entire team in a synergised way.

Team build is an important aspect of Guild Wars - players needing to resort to henchmen won't be able to enjoy that aspect fully.

There are no overpowered heroes - only good players and bad players and overpowered human builds and consumables.

UnChosen · Aug 02, 2009, 11:30 PM // 23:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

...

Heroes are overpowered...you don't need to spend 15 min to form it. This is the inherent advantage heroes have that cannot be beaten no matter how good players are. Stuff like SF and PvE skills are not the answer because eventually ANet always caves in to the whining and nerfs them. In non speed clear scenarios, all those overpowered skills don't even save people that much time...SF is a glorified safe tanking skill in pug, and tanking takes even more time. Consumables cost money...and didn't you complain when I suggested paying in game gold per use for extra heroes? Not to mention heroes team can use consumables too.

That 15 min convenience is the thing that needs to be "balanced", then I could careless if people still choose heroes.

1) Improve group forming
-Doubtful...they already did a botched job the first time they tried with the party search thing. Not to mention resource intensive.

2) Limit Heroes
-What they're doing right now

3) Disincentives to use 7 heroes
-Pay to use or scale the drops downward like I suggested, hard to implement without complaints.

4) Incentives to group method 1: More "powerful" skills for human groups
-OMFG, Anet is ruining PvE, nerf those OP skills now, pugs are managing to finish non-endgame areas OMG.

5) Incentives to group method B: More drops for human groups
-OMFG, Anet is ruining the economy, why should those pugs get more drops when I'm doing as much work *cough* with my heroes.

Of course my preference had always been a mix of Option 1,4 and 5...too bad at the time of writing this post another "nerf SF to kill UWSC" thread popped up again.

Lishy · Aug 02, 2009, 11:34 PM // 23:34

So heroes are overpowered because it doesn't take 15 mins to find a group?
My comment:
What

Zahr Dalsk · Aug 03, 2009, 02:20 AM // 02:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kain Fz

So heroes are overpowered because it doesn't take 15 mins to find a group?
My comment:
What

What he means is that people would have too much fun instead of suffering through the process of multiplayer/PUG gameplay.

People who are against 7-hero parties do not want H/H players to have fun, ergo they will disagree with any suggestions to improve heroes.

Lishy · Aug 03, 2009, 02:34 AM // 02:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

People who are against 7-hero parties do not want H/H players to have fun, ergo they will disagree with any suggestions to improve heroes.

Mmmhhhmmm... Methinks anet isn't stupid enough to listen to their suggestions.
We'll get 7 heroes this content update. If not, I can't say it's the fault of devs. They just do what they're told :P

Bryant Again · Aug 03, 2009, 02:45 AM // 02:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

People who are against 7-hero parties do not want H/H players to have fun, ergo they will disagree with any suggestions to improve heroes.

I want to have fun, too, but given how non-essential 7 heroes are to a successful GW PvE experience I don't want to put it on a priority, plus we don't know the mentalities that'll arise with the implementation.

Zahr Dalsk · Aug 03, 2009, 04:42 AM // 04:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I want to have fun, too, but given how non-essential 7 heroes are to a successful GW PvE experience I don't want to put it on a priority, plus we don't know the mentalities that'll arise with the implementation.

Priority. That's something we hear a lot.

Sometimes important things happen. Like the spirit update, for example, or the BMP. Sometimes developer time is spent on frivolous, even detrimental things like the Zaishen Title Track.

All a question of whether the proposed change is more important than other planned changes.

So look at it this way: do the developers have something amazing planned, something so good it's better than getting seven heroes? If they do, then by all means, leave seven heroes for later. But if they're just planning on... doing nothing? Or doing a meaningless update full of things no one wants? Then I'd say seven heroes are an excellent use of their time.

Seven heroes would be a very, very positive step, so if there's something planned that's an even better use of developer time, great. I assume whatever this thing they're working on is going to amaze and delight us even more than seven heroes would.