Curse

MercenaryKnight · Aug 29, 2007, 03:30 AM // 03:30

(Merged by Dralspire)

I suppose if you would of said the game can not physically allow 7 heroes then stupid people like me would of not bothered asking, anyways thanks for the response.

Red Sonya · Aug 29, 2007, 04:03 AM // 04:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keifru

Ok, so you want to customize every nich of your party; hence making it very very easy to do any quest/dungeon/mission because you designed each peice to work together.

Hmmm...something sounds wrong to me.

"To much of a good thing, is a bad thing."

I agree with this. I've always thought of Heroes as an extention of myself and how I play, if I could have 7 of them I would be invincible and never play with any other players. Might just as well play an offline game like Baldur's Gate if you want to play THAT solo.

What I like to do with my heroes is goto old mission areas and help people get through them with my excellent builds. Thirsty River is my favorite my heroes rock there. With 7 heroes I wouldn't have incentive to do that so much since I'd probably turn totally anti-social like the rest who want 7 heroes.

Dragasa · Aug 29, 2007, 04:48 AM // 04:48

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10166467
"the primary reason for not making a chance is that the team does not want to disincent someone from playing in a party with other people" - Gaile

http://guildwars.incgamers.com/forum...9&postcount=72
"All the encouragement in the universe isn't going to magically create other players in the empty outposts." - ChaoticCoyote

vaxmor · Aug 29, 2007, 06:09 AM // 06:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragasa

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10166467
"the primary reason for not making a chance is that the team does not want to disincent someone from playing in a party with other people" - Gaile

Too late, PuGs do MORE than enough to disincentivise players from grouping with other players.

Chris Blackstar · Aug 29, 2007, 06:57 AM // 06:57

I wonder if Anet ever thought of doing it this way, continue to have the first three heros under the control of the player, but the last four heros are equiped like henchies are, thus the AI would control them. That would solve the clutter problem in the interface, it would solve the allowence to use seven heros for players.

Given that the use of henchies with heros, being henchies are premade heros, and given that you still have pugs even with that system in place. The argument not to allow it is stupid, because it has been there the whole time, and players still form pug groups for areas based on the fact that you get better drops with real players and that is the motivation to play in pugs or wait around to form blanced pugs to play with, for missions, quest, ect.

So Gaile, if you are reading the comments, then take this suggestion into consideration, and pass it along to the development team. Allow the players to equip seven heros, however the first 3 they can control, but the last 4 are controled in the same way hench men would be controled. The arguement that it will destroy pugs is invalid because the system already existes, except the players can not change the premade skill sets in the hench men, then new system would allow them to customize the hench man, buy allowing their heros to take there place.

Red Sonya · Aug 29, 2007, 07:31 AM // 07:31

To me much of the incentive to not play with other players happened when Nightfall came out. I made it through many missions with just henchies before heroes though, heroes just made things A LOT EASIER. Before Hard Mode I couldn't believe how easy it was to play in Prophecies with heroes, now with HM it's even easier. I don't even have to play many places I can go with just three heroes and they can do all the fighting and I never have to lift a finger except to point in the direction we went and pickup my loot.

That's another thing we sure could use an auto pickup loot button. It's a pain in my butt (laziness lol) to have to pick up every piece everytime there is a battle. Something like a pickup loot button within earshot and your character goes around and picks everything up without having to press the button and click on every item every time. PEASE!!

Targren · Aug 29, 2007, 08:28 AM // 08:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragasa

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10166467
"the primary reason for not making a chance is that the team does not want to disincent someone from playing in a party with other people" - Gaile

I think we've got enough disincentives already, thanks. =\ My own, admittedly limited, experiences, already include the mending wammo, the sin using dash + unsuspecting strike as a PULL tactic, An R/E using Aura of Restoration + a bar full of skills (no spells. at all.), rangers who set traps and then stand IN FRONT OF THEM *facepalms*...

Given the trouble I had with PUG's just doing the bonus on The Frost Gate, my endgame future looks grim...

Tiny Killer · Aug 29, 2007, 09:11 AM // 09:11

I made it through Prophesies with henchmen. I made it through Factions with henchmen. I made it through Nightfall with heroes and henchmen. I reckon I can make it through Eye of the North with heroes and henchmen.

Would it be nice to have a 7 hero team? Yes, I believe it would. Is it mandatory to have that team? No. Though I do not agree with the reasons stated by ANet for not allowing 7 heroes, I do respect their decision. It is, after all, their game.

Thundro · Aug 29, 2007, 10:43 AM // 10:43

I have a great idea to make people play with people again.

Make a title!

Give points for every mission/ quest completed with a full team of players.
I myself think that heroes are the WORST thing that ever happened to Guild Wars.

TideSwayer · Aug 29, 2007, 11:37 AM // 11:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

(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.

It isn't a design choice to keep balance. It was an arbitrary constant number that, at the time of its inception, was high enough for PvE yet low enough for PvP (you'll remember that both modes allowed 3 heroes originally). It has nothing to do with PvE merits alone. PvP's heroes got restricted even further so this arbitrary number of 3 heroes for PvE now ends up being completely random. 3 heroes isn't some magic number that keeps the laws of the universe running smoothly. Stop trying to claim that.

Anet refuses to make the switch because they wouldn't have a damn clue how to adjust the flagging system to allow for more heroes (hint: allow us to set up groups of party members under each flag instead of having one for each damn character), and are otherwise unwilling to put forth the time to make the change. (The latter point I can respect, as time = money.) That's all there is to it.

"Disconnect with logic" is such a lame thing to say. "Logic" tells me that with loot scaling, farm code that supposedly doesn't exist anymore (although The Halcyon Job quest somehow stops giving me gold armor drops if I do that quest for hours on end), and a full party of WHOEVER dividing up drops to keep individual wealth gain to a minimum, it shouldn't matter how easy or hard the game is made with heroes, hench, or human players. You can 4-man probably 95% of the game if you wanted to. The game was originally designed to support the creativity of builds, team or individual. Allowing only three heroes and forcing the use of pathetic henchmen restricts that.

Allowing more heroes per party wouldn't shorten the grind for those precious titles. It may make people more interested in actually working towards them, if they were allowed to do it their way (custom team build) and not Anet's way (3 heroes and constant hench builds). Surely the great and powerful Anet has to realize that their henchmen limits just how creative a player's team build can be, and that, over time, using the same build gets really boring? People who worry about balance or difficulty leniency allowing more heroes would cause could always choose to just use less heroes (like before). It's not hard to add your own difficulty to the game.

Mhenlo sucks. I'm sick of seeing him. Tell him to go the hell away. Same for Devona and anyone else that has been around for 2 years. After all these years, Ascalon is still a decrepit shithole. Shouldn't they be home trying to, you know, actually rebuild the place? If we're going to be forced to use henchmen, at least put different ones in different areas and give us a hell of a lot more variety in what choices we have to pick from. Why are there human henchmen in a Norn area anyways?

I don't respect Anet's decision, but I can certainly live with it (as I've had no other choice). I feel that this is one way in which Guild Wars fails to meet its potential, however. I am a bit disgusted that Anet refuses to even compromise on this issue and allow the use of one more hero (thus giving us more heroes than henchmen). I am a bit disgusted that Anet refuses to even have a 'test' of more allowed heroes and get community opinions afterwards.

bhavv · Aug 29, 2007, 12:37 PM // 12:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Blackstar

I wonder if Anet ever thought of doing it this way, continue to have the first three heros under the control of the player, but the last four heros are equiped like henchies are, thus the AI would control them. That would solve the clutter problem in the interface, it would solve the allowence to use seven heros for players.

They maybe would if they read the suggestion. I absolutely hate the reason 'it is not within the game mechanics to use 7 heroes' when we can already use 3 heroes and 4 hench, or 6 heroes with 2 people 6 heroes and one rage quit

Allow us to use the last four heroes as henchmen i.e. without flags

Could Gaile possibly read this suggestion and tell us why it is not within the games mechanics when it can already be done?

The first 3 heroes can be added as usuall, with the 1-3 buttons and flags, the remaining four can be added as henchmen without the number buttons next to their names and rely fully on AI. I.E. monks are fine without micromanagement (I always use hench monks in NF + GWEN preview), The Elly nukers would be fine on their own, then in slots 1-3 you place your Barrage spike with their interupts on manual cast and Morgahn with Charge + Fallback on manual cast (I use Charge + fallback when exploring, 8% away from GMC, also in time restrained missions and challenges like Dragons Throat + Nundu Bay)

Again could Gaile please read this and tell me why it is against the mechanics of the game plz plz pretty plz?

Sleeper Service · Aug 29, 2007, 12:48 PM // 12:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

They maybe would if they read the suggestion. I absolutely hate the reason 'it is not within the game mechanics to use 7 heroes' when we can already use 3 heroes and 4 hench, or 6 heroes with 2 people 6 heroes and one rage quit

Allow us to use the last four heroes as henchmen i.e. without flags

Could Gaile possibly read this suggestion and tell us why it is not within the games mechanics when it can already be done?...

-typo corrected-

bold, underline, font size 75.

bhavv · Aug 29, 2007, 12:55 PM // 12:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeper Service

-typo corrected-

bold, underline, font size 75.

Or I wonder if its possible to PM my post directly to her or the development team. I really want to know why it is against the games mechanics (We all know it isnt except for the people that make the game lol)

Obviously Gaile has stopped reading this thread because the people above her at A-hole-net have said it cant be done.

I also just remembered - One of the reasons we were given before by Gaile on why it cant be done was because every one would solo and not pug anymore. Then in threads on solo farming and playing, gaile says 'We have nothing against people that choose to play the game solo'.

If someone could find and quote those two posts it would make my day.

Sweet Mystery · Aug 29, 2007, 01:48 PM // 13:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thundro

I have a great idea to make people play with people again.

Make a title!

Give points for every mission/ quest completed with a full team of players.
I myself think that heroes are the WORST thing that ever happened to Guild Wars.

And when you max it, you can't display in HoM? That sort of title?

Coraline Jones · Aug 29, 2007, 02:10 PM // 14:10

I can kind of understand why ANet doesn't want us to have an all-hero party. Guild Wars is turning (badly) into a single-player game as PUGs don't seem to get any better in all this time. Contrary to some of the threads on here, I think that Guild Wars can definitely be very challenging in places, which is why you can't rely on random players. You can't tell what you're going to get: A super-hardcore pro, a complete idiot, or somebody in between.

Had the game been truly easy, then you would see funny builds like mending wammos and nobody would say anything. But because you can die if people aren't thinking the same way as you, people just rely on heroes and henchmen as they never get tired, don't rage quit, and don't mind if you take a break in the middle of an explorable area. While heroes/henchmen aren't perfect, they are consistent in their behavior, and that's the thing people want.

I think that Hard Mode should be the dividing line. If you're playing in Hard Mode, there's almost nobody in town that wants to group up with you. And I'm in a large alliance, but what if you only get to play after 9pm, when most normal people with day jobs need to logout? In other words, in Hard Mode, we should be able to run with full hero teams if we want--especially in the hardest missions where great builds and great players are almost mandatory.

It just takes one amateur player to screw up an entire mission in Hard Mode. Last night, for the fourth time in the last month, I went with a PUG to do a HM mission only to find out that somebody didn't even have an Elite Skill in his skillbar. And people that do this don't do it to be funny or be a griefer; they honestly think that no Elite Skill could possibly make their character better, or they are too lazy to cap any good Elites or buy any skills so they can't run a decent build.

nugzta · Aug 29, 2007, 02:27 PM // 14:27

^^ I agree with this. My problem is that no one plays HM, just enable 7 heroes for HM. NM stay the same because it is easy enough with henchies, I dont care.

Vinraith · Aug 29, 2007, 04:19 PM // 16:19

Quote:

I think that Hard Mode should be the dividing line. If you're playing in Hard Mode, there's almost nobody in town that wants to group up with you. And I'm in a large alliance, but what if you only get to play after 9pm, when most normal people with day jobs need to logout? In other words, in Hard Mode, we should be able to run with full hero teams if we want--especially in the hardest missions where great builds and great players are almost mandatory.

That would suffice ot solve the larger problem, I think, and is perhaps a compromise we can all agree to.

Thundro · Aug 29, 2007, 04:46 PM // 16:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sweet Mystery

And when you max it, you can't display in HoM? That sort of title?

Meh, they can fix that anytime they want. They probably want to make statues for each title, so let them.

Masterr · Aug 29, 2007, 04:52 PM // 16:52

the only time i play with real players is in elite missions, for the rest of the missions 3 heros+ 4 henchs are better than any pug, if they remove the limit on the number of heros it wont have any impact i still will play the same way.
off topic, dungeons in eotn were pretty easy i was hoping they werent henchable

bhavv · Aug 29, 2007, 04:56 PM // 16:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masterr

off topic, dungeons in eotn were pretty easy i was hoping they werent henchable

Thats because of how much better the henchmen are in GWEN.