Curse

lg5000 · Oct 22, 2007, 10:44 AM // 10:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by wu is me

well human players will still be desirable over heros i think, even if 7 were allowed, looking at hero ai... terrible ( and thats probably a good thing )

Chances are they'd end up very like henchmen anyway cos theres not too many builds that a hero can use effectively, and theres only so much micro management/ screen space from one guy.

Personally i don't think it would wipe out team play having heros, its always more fun with real ppl

I dunno.. people make me fail missions.. repeatably.. hero/hench teams generally don't. There's a few exceptions where I take people.

However, I do sorta agree with the hero being like henchmen. I set up a build on my heroes and rarely change builds on them. (ok, no real need to change builds when you have the choice of 3 of a kind in most cases)

the_jos · Oct 22, 2007, 11:06 AM // 11:06

This will indeed go in the same direction as the other thread (7 hero)

While I don't mind discussing the topic, I don't want a 'I want to play like I want' or 'PUGs suck' discussion, which are statements, not arguments.
And as far as I can tell, this discussion will head that way, the same way earlier discussions did.

upier · Oct 22, 2007, 12:08 PM // 12:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

I came up with a nice idea for Hex pressure in PVE earlier today. Water elly, 3 necros, 2 messies, but I cant run all that with just 3 heroes.

Its like in PVP. When you play HA, the leader will usually request the team build and a damn good amount of organisation will be going on. When you PVE, you are never going toget the same kind of organisation in pugs or with other players. You cant lead the team builds to your content when so and so doesnt have the skills, and for general PVE, setting up a nice organised team for everything is just beyond possible.

Allowing 7 heroes in PVE will at least give us the level of organisation and team build satisfaction that PVP players enjoy, in PVE. We can play the builds we want, and tweak everything to our hearts content.

Whats not to like people and Anet? Whats not to like?

WOW!
It seems that not only do other people think like me - they actually think the same thoughts at the same time.
I came here to actually start a thread about this and somebody beat me to it.
And then - also my lovely Hex-way example was already shown.

In my opinion - a full party of heroes (minus one player of course) is the only thing that might save PvE these days without some MAJOR work for A.Net.
My suggestions:
1. Leave the option that one can only show 4 heroes at a time as it is. You can still select a hero, equip it and then remove it and select a new one. It takes longer - but it doesn't require ANY modifications to the panel itself.
2. Leave that we can only display 3 hero-skill bars as it is. Although that sounds like a sweet thing - I mostly keep them open just because I am used to having them. I stopped micromanaging ages ago. And the only time that they are REALLY needed is when I need to trigger a certain skill that the hench have issues with. BUT in a party of 8 - having 3 hero skill-bars for the skill-bars THAT include skills that need micromanagement is perfectly FINE! Maintained enchantments are pretty much the only skills that I can think off that would need that!
3. Leave us with 4 flags - as it is. If I am using flags I mostly just flag the whole team. I am completely able to control my team of heroes and hench - so introducing a team of all heroes would be the same.
The heroes that would require my input - may it be skills micromanagement or placement on the battlefield - would be put into party slots 2-4 (just like now) - and the rest of them would just get pushed behind.

So up to now - nothing would require a change in the game.
What would be required is for A.net to enable the party slots 5-8(12) so that they can be filled with heroes.

Heroes would that way become more desirable. IF I can only have 3 heroes - Nightfall is perfectly fine for me. I didn't purchase GWEN yet - and I might never do. It doesn't make sense to have 20ish heroes at my disposal - if I can only have 3 at a given moment IN MY PARTY! BUT if I were able to have a full team of heroes - then the second Ritualist or paragon that I can obtain in GWEN would be a SERIOUSLY good reason to get the expansion!

Now for the reasons WHY I'd love for this to happen:
1. GW consists of 4 games now. It's a HUGE world - and the population isn't only spread all over it. GW also has regional servers (EU, USA,....), language districts, districts that appear if a town is too full AND instanced worlds which further distance the players from one and other. The party search option is helpful - but it really doesn't help much when trying to find a party to do a quest or explore an area when there are like 3 people in the outpost you want to start from!
This means that the option of 2 people and 6 heroes isn't completely realistic. It works for certain populated parts - especially if one can FARM that part - but if one wishes to only PLAY - in reality, it doesn't work.
So that leaves us with hench.
2. I have played most of gaming time with hench. Not because PUGs suck - or I am a man-hating machine! Hell no! My most fond memories are of the times of like 2 years ago when I was able to get a party and we we get lost together, explore the wonderful worlds and do quests together! We were using bad builds, max DP was a state of normal play - it was just FUN!
The thing is - my time is limited now AND in the two years playing the game I did get better! I stopped looking ONLY at what I can offer to the team with my build - but rather what can the TEAM also offer ME!
GW is a team game. And for the best results - one shouldn't only look at the build one is running - but rather how does that build work with the rest of the team! And this is where the hench fail.
Their builds are set in stone.
And not only that - the selection of hench is set in stone! Let's take for example the Paragon. It's arrival offered us a very strong alternative to how the game can be played! Nightfall is a joy to play as a physical damage dealer! Imagine having 3 paragons, 2 monks, 1 necro and 2 warriors! One is able to break the mold of the nuker-tank-healer cookie and let his imagination go wild! Of course that is only possible if the player IS good! If the player is able to build together a team of individuals that complete each other! I had to make a warrior and a paragon to be able to appreciate them! And for that I was rewarded with a game that got easier!
But at the end - that is what I deserved! I got BETTER at the game and the game became easier!
Now let's try to run that in C1!
We simply can't!
There is no way to run the team build that WORKS because one is limited by the selection of hench and it's builds! What good is a team build that works heavily on providing adrenaline for the whole team - if the hench aren't using adrenal skills? Or how can I run a hex-heavy team if the hench mesmer - who would be perfect for my team - just spams Distortion! Or a physical damage team when the Ranger is using Kindle Arrows?

Or the example given above - a hex-heavy team! And here is where fixing PvE is most evident. Skills are the basis of the fight. Some skills are really good. And those skills get used. The problem is that only a selection of those skills can be used in PvE also! Some just don't work! And with the fact that I am forced to run 4 hench - that additionally limits the skills I can use in PvE!
Let's face it - some hench suck. And some are really good. So one ends up using that work better. And that influences the way I play the game! I am no longer the person in charge of the way I play MY game!
The hench control MY game!
For example - you have places where the best options are the heavy hitter-hench! So I have half the team consisting of party-members that will blow up everything in seconds! What good are then MY damage over time skills? What good is my disabling of skills if no-one will feel the pain of the skill being disabled! If I want to be useful - I NEED to take part in the 3 second massacre that takes place! And lets take the example of the mesmer - that limits my options severely! Sure I can nuke with CoP and Surge/Burn - but do I really want to play the whole game with the same 8 skills if I know that there are other options THAT WORK AS WELL but ONLY if I can have 1 additional player with his 3 heroes!

Why do I need to be punished for growing as a player?

So seriously - PLEASE reconsider allowing us to have a full team of heroes! It will allow for a MORE diverse and fulfilling gaming experience!

(and yeah - I am aware I am using WAY too much exclamation points!)

Bryant Again · Oct 22, 2007, 12:28 PM // 12:28

Make GW less suckable imo.

Isileth · Oct 22, 2007, 02:14 PM // 14:14

Im all for more heroes. Ideally 7.

Currently the playerbase is so spread out that getting a team outside of guild or friends is very hard. So we use h/h. Most henchmen dont even have 8 skills! Let alone 8 good skills. Beyond that because you cant change the build some of them are useless in certain areas.

With 3 games and an expansion (double that with HM) plus titles there just arent enough players to form teams with (At least quickly at any rate, I dont want to have to spend 20mins just so I can start playing).

Having more heroes would allow people to go ahead and play the bit of the game they want. Not only that but instead of having to take henchmen solo players can actually take a good team build. People will be able to have fun coming up will full team build that they couldnt use normally because finding other players with the required skills and who want to run it is practically impossible.

Coraline Jones · Oct 22, 2007, 04:15 PM // 16:15

I used to be in the crowd that believed that more than three heroes would damage the game. But it's becoming obvious that the game and player base is changing and so the mechanics should change also.

If you look at any PUG, if the demand for a mission/quest is low, they will take anybody. But as the difficulty of a dungeon (or whatever) increases, people start asking for specific builds and they want to run a specific style. The reason is obvious to me: The average PUG is not interested in a challenge at all. They are interested in only the reward... The chance at an rare end-chest green, filling out another page in their books, or increasing a reputation title. As a result, a specific team build will maximize that chance.

Seven heroes will only make that a lot easier. In the end, heroes have only so much A.I. anyway. They can't replace a good team of human players, but they can override some of the more somewhat-substandard builds used on henchman.

If you look at Guild Wars, most of the time people are sitting in town waiting for a particular person to show up. This goes against the initial Guild Wars advertisements that said that you should never have to wait in town for a player, as henchmen were supposedly good enough to run any quest or mission with you. They were a long time ago, but with the introduction of Hard Mode and such, it's pretty obvious that they aren't cutting it anymore. Perhaps the real fix isn't adding more heroes. Maybe if ArenaNet would just give henchmen better A.I. and make them use better builds, then nobody would complain as much. Or maybe they should just allow larger party sizes than 8.

Yes, the game would be made "too easy" for some, but I think that people need to look at the reality of the situation. If you look at the entire MMO market out there, I think that GW is the only game which is interested in a "challenging game". Is that what ANet wanted? A niche market? From what I can tell, the average gamer has clearly stated that they want heavily customizable characters with the ability to choose their own destinies, and the ability to gain obscene power via broken weapons/skills. And those are things that Guild Wars does not have at all.

Aera Lure · Oct 22, 2007, 04:38 PM // 16:38

Guild Wars has changed a lot indeed. PUGs used to be able to have some reasonable success, at least in NM, but nowadays that's not necessarily the case. Combine that with most people now focusing on HM and title tracks with a single character and game play is all about having a friend or two, loading up on heroes, and setting out to do it as you plan. More often than not, these activities fail with random people if you can even find a group looking to do the specific thing you are.

PUGs do go along their merry way still, to some degree, doing missions and sometimes quests, but its normal mode and its often those who have no guild or less experience now. Not as many experienced people play these things any more as they have their developed character pursuing only titles and farming, myself included.

A lot of the times I wish it wasnt this way. I used to have an awful lot of fun in PUGs. Success too and reasonably efficient. Its just different now because the goals in game have changed. Its certainly become far more challenging, so time spent vs success ratios more than encourage you to do something in a way you know works, with someone you know to listen and be accommodating to your same goals. This killed PUGs as much as anything else.

I spend almost all my time when playing with someone in game now playing with a single person as we pursue our goals. I otherwise grab henchmen to round out the party and do it myself. I make far better progress that way. Rare is the day I join a PUG for something. Its usually to go to a favorite old area/mission (THK or something) and play charity monk with the aim of simply enjoying myself and helping the party the best that is possible. I experience some failures now doing that, always have fun, but earn absolutely no reward for my time worthwhile - hence I do it rarely - ie, a significant problem in PUGs. Something for Anet to look at, but seriously, why go back and play something that will give you minimal exp/gold and no title progress, with only small to reasonable chance of success per time spent? Fun? Sure, but I have fun playing with someone else while accomplishing goals, too, so do that over just a random PUG play experience.

There is NO reason Anet can summon that invalidates the use of seven heroes now. No technical reason, no reason regarding the flagging interface. Nothing. I go play PUGs when I want to change things up a bit. If I want to have fun completing something with someone else, its ONE more person and their heroes. A change to seven heroes wont impact things socially at all. I wish there were reasons to join PUGs and make them work, but there isnt. All that said, I also frankly could care less one way or the other if we remain limited to 4 heroes or get the chance to use 7. Doing just fine with one other person and H/h when alone.

Wrath of m0o · Oct 22, 2007, 05:55 PM // 17:55

Just killed Duncan the Black with Hero Hench,
with no Nerco or Mesmer.
Yes more heros would make things easier, but it still dosent make me group with groups that leave and make victory an impossibility.
Wish i could do the same with Mallyx.

Spazzer · Oct 22, 2007, 05:58 PM // 17:58

Three heroes is more than enough. I was very surprised when they said that we would have three--I expected one.

quickmonty · Oct 22, 2007, 06:01 PM // 18:01

Here we go .... AGAIN!

Crom The Pale · Oct 23, 2007, 01:18 AM // 01:18

People have some very strong oppinions on this topic, both for and against.

I wonder what would happen if Anet changed the limit on Hero's but didnt tell anyone??

People that normaly Hero/Hench would find out fast that they could add more and would be gleefull. Would they rush to towns and shout out this new found feature???

Those that pug or play with guildies would never discover it and would continue playing with out any change at all.

Count to Potato · Oct 23, 2007, 01:23 AM // 01:23

dont forget about HB, would they up to 8v8's and change maps if they made it 7 heroes in PVE? (only assumption i actually would dislike this from happening)

Onarik Amrak · Oct 23, 2007, 01:38 AM // 01:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spazzer

Three heroes is more than enough. I was very surprised when they said that we would have three--I expected one.

I think that's what they're doing with GW2.

You can have 1 companion with you.

I can imagine it now... "ANET PLZ GIV UZ 3 COMPANONZ!"

BTW, I wouldn't mind having 4 heroes. I just don't see the point of begging for it as it's not going to happen.

pamelf · Oct 23, 2007, 02:21 AM // 02:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by eudas

henchmen are a tool. when you fail, recognize that instead of blaming the tools, you should take responsibility for being the one who used the tool poorly and strive to learn how the tool works so that you can utilize it more effectively. there is nothing in this game that cannot be henched for at least a Standard completion rating.

"yeah but i dont have the time to learn how to make the stupid henchies work. i just want them to be as smart as a person! why don't they do what i want?"

ai programming is complicated, but the henchies have very obvious triggers and conditional responses that can be anticipated, and, thereby, directed. no, they're not going to do the optimal thing in response to a given situation. yes, they have sucky builds. but the hero AI isn't really any better than the henchman AI; the only difference is you can dress your dolls, and give them different builds. while that alone *is* an improvement, the fact of the matter is that they still have the same predictable AI responses and can only go so far -- they still require human direction.

this is where you come in. it is your job to set up the battle in your favor before the first arrow is nocked. you can flag heroes and henchies out of AoE spells. You can move them to retreat when things start to look unfavorable for your team. You can call targets for them to focus fire. You can bodyblock to make things easy for the nukers and control the engagement.

the tool could be better, but it is not the tool who is at fault if it fails.

i suppose this post is really a long-winded way to say "LRN2PLAY", but honestly i'm trying to be helpful here. 4, 5, 6, 7 heroes isn't going to be *any* better than 0 heroes/7 henchies if you don't know how to control them.

eudas

I agree with the person who said you missed the point. It's not about it being "better" with more henches, it's about allowing more versatility in play, testing new builds, and no matter what you argue, Henches carry a maximum of 5 skills that you can't choose, whereas heroes allow you to plan builds for certain situations.

Most of us know how to play. We've played the campaigns numerous times, and sometimes with just henches (pre NF) when teams weren't available. "LRN[ing]2PLAY" isn't really an issue. The issue is us getting bored with doing the same things over and over again, and the addition of extra heroes in a team would allow for much more creative game play, re-investing interest.

Bryant Again · Oct 23, 2007, 02:25 AM // 02:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onarik Amrak

I think that's what they're doing with GW2.

You can have 1 companion with you.

I can imagine it now... "ANET PLZ GIV UZ 3 COMPANONZ!"

BTW, I wouldn't mind having 4 heroes. I just don't see the point of begging for it as it's not going to happen.

Not that you'll need the companion anyways.

arsie · Oct 23, 2007, 02:51 AM // 02:51

Here is why 3 heroes have worked out. In NM, many people play as: You + 3 Heroes + 4 Henchmen. In HM, many people play as: You + 3 Heroes + Friend + 3 Heroes.

If there is any arguments for more heroes, it would be 3 or 7. Anything in between is a waste of time. With 7 heroes come the complication of having your entire screen and minimap covered with hero boxes and flag tabs.

That has led the suggestion of 3 micro-manageable heroes and 4 unmanaged heroes. People will not contemplate 7 unmanaged heroes, as an option.

As it is, heroes are vastly superior to henchmen. Players without heroes are already vastly handicapped. Heroes also make most of Prophesies such a joke. I believe Anet realised this disparity, and is probably wise not to widen it anymore.

Yes, you can say that they will steer sales for Nightfall and GWEN, but it is more than likely to get people quitting earlier. If you're playing Prophesies, any guy with 3 Heroes is going to breeze you through most missions up until S.Shiverspeak.

I think a balanced path to take is to have more variety of henchmen available at each outpost. There is no excuse about it not being possible, look at places like Tahnnakai Temple, there's nearly 16 henchmen available there. For story consistencies, some henchmen are not available at some outposts, but they can be replaced by generics, with npc skins, and throw-away stories.

And as suggested elsewhere, these henchmen should "ping" their builds when you talk to them, instead of the vague "Cultist Henchman" type tags.

This pinging of build serves 2 functions. 1) It allows players to choose the henchmen without having to go to wiki. 2) It shows new players a wide variety of sample builds.

Lastly, yes, players should learn to play, but players should also try to teach.

6am3 Fana71c · Oct 23, 2007, 03:40 AM // 03:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

That's great, you've got a large pool of people you enjoy playing the game with and a free enough schedule that it's easy to coordinate play. That's wonderful for you. Some of us aren't so lucky. Why, precisely, should you get to enjoy parts of the game that those of us with serious scheduling constraints and only a few friends playing the game consequently find totally inaccessible?

Oh, I remember now, you're the only one whose fun matters and the rest of us can suck it. Imagine that.

In every single post you make, you repeat yourself, telling the same old boring story and QQ'ing over every post that doesn't encourage solo play, which you are so obsessed with.
Less QQ more pew pew.

Jetdoc · Oct 23, 2007, 04:55 AM // 04:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

I wonder what would happen if Anet changed the limit on Hero's but didnt tell anyone??

Those that pug or play with guildies would never discover it and would continue playing with out any change at all.

Are you serious?

Bryant Again · Oct 23, 2007, 05:15 AM // 05:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

Are you serious?

I actually probably wouldn't be suprised if they never noticed...

Nonetheless, none of us are in any position to say what will happen to PUGs if there was an increased number of heroes.

Voltar · Oct 23, 2007, 05:28 AM // 05:28

I always post in these threads when I see them. These posts give

1) Those of us who think full-group builds would be fun to create and play the chance to rant about it and

2) Those of us who like to post, "Not this again!" the chance to click the, "POST REPLY," button.

the Thump is Up!