Curse

hallomik · May 28, 2007, 05:45 AM // 05:45

As unienaule said, you need ONE other person to make a full human/hero team.

Anet has said the 3 hero per player constraint is a deliberate balance design decision. People should accept this is about as likely to change as the level 20 cap, 8 skills, and 1 secondary profession.

Requesting a cross-outpost signup process or other improved ways to build groups could conceivably result in a change to the game. QQ'ing about not being able to play with 7 heroes is pointless.

Series · May 28, 2007, 06:15 AM // 06:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by KiyaKoreena

Fully agree with you.

Honestly, for the people whining they should allow people to have 7 heros out at one time because they can't find another person to play with: Find a better guild!

Yes, because all good skills have people on all times willing to vanquish any area in the game you want to or beat any mission across all three campaigns you want to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by semantic

There are 2 really basic reasons we can't have 7 heroes:

1. the game would be stupid easy. Everywhere.

2. you'd feel useless. Heroes would pull so much weight, you could AFK and barely notice the difference.

Riddle me this: What exactly makes the game stupid easy with 7 heroes that doesn't make it stupid easy with 7 people? One could argue that the other people in your party "pull so much weight, you could AFK and barely notice the difference". Oh and on easy- er... normal mode- that is what i do- but with a team of all henchmen! The henchies can hold their own in most areas of the game without help. Perhaps you would think that all party sizes should be reduced to 4 max so that we feel more important and pull more weight?

Bryant Again · May 28, 2007, 06:27 AM // 06:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by unienaule

Sure, some people will rage against me saying that, but I routinely built 6-8 man teams in the old days of prophecies with PuGs, and if you really tried and didn't go the second you had 8 people, it was usually pretty good.

The Old Days. The old days were when Guild Wars was at it's best, where everything was new, and the playerbase was thriving. Nearly every outpost was flooded with people, and finding parties was easy.

Those old days are dead. The playerbase, slightly increased, is now spread across over sixty missions on three continents. Because of this, it's obvious that PUGs are becoming harder and harder to form. Another problem is the party-size: 8-limit parties are starting to become the standard in the Guild Wars campaigns.

The reason many people choose heroes over real people is because they're more reliable. That does not mean that they are better real players, but that's what the party leader is doing - they're reducing the risk while reducing the viability.

ANet's actions and comments, like Mordakai has noted, have pointed to one thing: Things aren't going as planned. It's easily assumed that ANet wants people to play together, but they way that the whole game is currently set up goes against it.

I can fully understand why ANet won't allow us to have 7 heroes. In fact, I sympathize with them - allowing 7 heroes would eliminate any reason to play with another person, and that's something ANet does not want to do.

artay · May 28, 2007, 06:34 AM // 06:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Series

Riddle me this: What exactly makes the game stupid easy with 7 heroes that doesn't make it stupid easy with 7 people? One could argue that the other people in your party "pull so much weight, you could AFK and barely notice the difference". Oh and on easy- er... normal mode- that is what i do- but with a team of all henchmen! The henchies can hold their own in most areas of the game without help. Perhaps you would think that all party sizes should be reduced to 4 max so that we feel more important and pull more weight?

Because Heroes get decisions right most of the time, can make fast desiccation, always active, don't sleep, dont take breaks, do everything you command, you can customize their skills, they don't talk back, they don't over aggro. etc

Henchman have some of the above. But I still think they should keep the limit to 3.

Mesmer in Need · May 28, 2007, 06:49 AM // 06:49

Im fine with three heros. I dont want to have 7 skill barts taking up half my screen trying to manage all my heros and playing for myself at the same time. Just finish your party with hench or a friend and his heros.

Some Guru Named Kai · May 28, 2007, 06:54 AM // 06:54

Heroes are nice as a filler, which may or may not have been anet's intention. For example, pre-Nightfall, we all remember those dreadful days of THK when no monks were available or reliable

( not to mention those "monks on strike" were pretty funny ). Now a group of 7 or 8 won't have to wait days on days to find a suitable monk, sorry Mhenlo, can't have you Healing Touch the frontline!

But anet's intentions are always been encouraging people interaction, hence why they limit heroes. 7 heroes is AI overkill, PvE would be a breeze even with hard mode. It would take a Harder Mode to then satisfy the QQ'ers.

Cebe · May 28, 2007, 07:34 AM // 07:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinger314

And ArenaNet's primary reason for not allowing 7 Heroes is to create more human-based groups?

OH will you STOP COMPLAINING!

If you were allowed 7 Henchmen per team, the starter areas would be full of people who went to Vabbi, loaded up 7 heroes and mapped to Kamadan so that they could have a party of 8 for clearing out the Plains of Jarin. The Hard Mode explorable areas in the starter regions aren't made for 8 players, even in Hard Mode.

While you're at it I don't see why you didn't complain that you weren't allowed 11 heroes so you could do Urgoz Warren with them.

Also, let's look at the Temple of Ages, Zin Ku Corridor and Chantry of Secrets. If you could just load up with henchmen there would be absolutely no incentive to group with anyone else for the UW and FoW.

I suggest if you want a game designed to y our own specifications you go design one yourself.

Traveller · May 28, 2007, 07:37 AM // 07:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottyboysn

All the extra heroes would do for me is replace henchmen, not people. Who is really concerned about the henchmen's feelings? Come on.

This is the point ANet and some posters fails to see, in my opinion. Many of us use 7 computer-controlled players in addition to ourselves already! If we use henchmen and heroes, I don't see why we couldn't use all heroes.

In an earlier interview, Gaile stated that ANet could make henchmen better, but they won't, since people wouldn't play with real people at all after that. This was before they introduced heroes, so they did come back a bit. ANet seems so concerned about losing the social aspect of GW, but they have themselves ruined a big part of it by allowing spammers and leechers to keep going.

The thing is, often with a limited time to play, it's just much easier to take henchmen and heroes, spend a bit about setting their skills and just doing the task (and usually succeeding) instead of spending ages trying to find people to do it with, especially in missions and areas which are less populated or if you happen to play a class not particularly wanted in PUGs (Mesmers and assassins, anyone?)

The worry about hero skillbars cluttering the screen sounds rather artificial as well. For me, heroes do their job well I and don't feel the need to micro-manage them most of the time or even have their skillbars visible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celestial Beaver

Also, let's look at the Temple of Ages, Zin Ku Corridor and Chantry of Secrets. If you could just load up with henchmen there would be absolutely no incentive to group with anyone else for the UW and FoW.

Well, you can go to UW or FoW now with just one friend and 6 heroes. Is going by yourself really that much more worse, if that one friend isn't available?

Cacheelma · May 28, 2007, 07:38 AM // 07:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinger314

Gaile made a response to the idea of improving Henchmen instead of allowing 7 Heroes:

You'd think that the designers of the game would know why Healing Breeze and 10e spells are bad on Henchmen Monks...

I think it's a ploy to make us feel important.

Don't you know? It's clear from the fact that they don't allow 7 heroes THAT Henchmen AI/Skills are worse than Heroes AI/Skills (otherwise they'd just let us use 7 heroes instead of 3 heroes 4 henchmen, right?).

So basically, when you see a hench doing something stupid/using lame skills, please remember that it's intended.

It's a damn shame, but.....what else can we do?

Ludo · May 28, 2007, 08:05 AM // 08:05

Perhaps the 3/8 hero limit is to simulate real parties. In most random pugs you get 3 or 4 good players, 2 or 3 decent but misguided players, and a couple lulu's. And maybe a leaver and a long term disconnect (what use is a player who is missing half the mission). It's like having a few great hero's and Aleisa along as your second healer. It's fair enough.

Traveller · May 28, 2007, 08:17 AM // 08:17

Maybe they could add the chance to have 7 heroes in your party, but mixed it up with real-life PUG behaviour: 1 hero who draws penises in the mini-map, 1 who refuses to play with you since you're a wammo, 1 who ragequits when you have a few casualties, 2 who bicker on and on about each others' builds, 1 who goes AFK at the start of the mission and 1 actually a good player.

Cebe · May 28, 2007, 08:40 AM // 08:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveller

Maybe they could add the chance to have 7 heroes in your party, but mixed it up with real-life PUG behaviour: 1 hero who draws penises in the mini-map, 1 who refuses to play with you since you're a wammo, 1 who ragequits when you have a few casualties, 2 who bicker on and on about each others' builds, 1 who goes AFK at the start of the mission and 1 actually a good player.

Don't forget the Dunkoro who leaves the group when you get to the Keep in Thunderhead Keep with the line "Later Noobs, this monk's on strike"

Mr.Bimble · May 28, 2007, 09:16 AM // 09:16

I'm quite happy with three heroes. Made me wonder though, how much time I spent just hanging round waiting to get in a group to do a mission before heroes became available. Ive been playing about 10 months,I'm a much better player than when I started. I still make mistakes, but when I do my heroes dont walk out or slag me off,which happens occasoinally with "real people".
And there is pvp for social contact with like minded souls.PvPers,always helpful,fun,and laid back,and so keen for you to be on their team.
We are not as social as some would have us be.I like playng with others,but time constraints make this unsuitable. If I'm by myself I can quit a mission,heroes and henches arn't let down,real people can be.Especially if they are new and do want helping around. Theres more to say, but its not really useful or informative.Basically I just love playing this game.People heroes and henchies all add something to it for me

Sectus · May 28, 2007, 09:48 AM // 09:48

I don't understand why Anet doesn't just leave this up to the players.

Incentive to play with human players is just stupid. If people really want to play with AI teammates, they should be allowed to do so! People who wanna play with humans will still do so, no matter how many heroes you can add.

Super-henchmen? Human players are already potentially a lot more powerful than all henchmen and heroes, so why would it be so bad that singleplayers would be able to select 4 more heroes instead of weak henchmen?

Interface is also an argument which isn't that important. If I'm gonna have 7 heroes, I won't have all their skill bars open. I'll only keep open the skillbars for the few heroes I really need to have some manual control over.

I really think Anet should re-consider this with the mindset of allowing the players to choose themselves how they want to play the game.

baz777 · May 28, 2007, 10:00 AM // 10:00

I’m quite happy with the present set up.

However, allowing one more hero, (4 total), would be a compromise and allow people a few more options.

arcanemacabre · May 28, 2007, 10:01 AM // 10:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sectus

Incentive to play with human players is just stupid. If people really want to play with AI teammates, they should be allowed to do so! People who wanna play with humans will still do so, no matter how many heroes you can add.

Agreed. The people complaining about having to play with 3 heroes and 4 henchmen are obviously going to continue to play that way, whether the last 4 are henchmen or heroes, and continue to have a nearly impossible time doing so. Why force them to team up with anyone (even if it's just one other w/heroes) if they really don't want to - considering their other option is ill-equipped henchies. That is the very definition of forcing people to play a certain way.

I, personally have nothing to worry about. My wife plays GW with me, so I always have a teammate with 3 heroes. I don't even know what the henchmen are in NF because I've never had to use them. That doesn't mean I don't think others shouldn't have that option should they choose to play that way. Some of the limitations in this game have a very fascist feel to them...

Pandora's box · May 28, 2007, 10:11 AM // 10:11

Hmmm I don't have any problems leaving heroes as they are. What disturbs me are the continuing attemps to get players stick together in teams. We have done that for 2 years, its good to have an option to team up, but please leave the idea of online games being a teamsport. They are not! Anyway, as for me, GW2 should really offer the freedom to solo everywhere, with decent rewards.

Its about time GW1 starts making steps into this direction, rather than sticking to ideas which have proven not to work! (according to the postings here, take a look at other games and discussions in forums, mostly all noses are pointing to the same direction - this is the only game I know where players *always* seem to dissagree about the most common subjects...)

Cymmina · May 28, 2007, 12:28 PM // 12:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveller

The worry about hero skillbars cluttering the screen sounds rather artificial as well. For me, heroes do their job well I and don't feel the need to micro-manage them most of the time or even have their skillbars visible.

You don't watch your heroes' DP, enchantment/hex information, keep track of who still has res sigs? I play support characters, and you better believe I do (and wish I could have it for all teammates). There are design limitations as to why we can't control more than 3 heroes, deal with it.

I'm quite happy to take 3 heroes and 4 henchmen, exept when it comes to Tyria, the land of the shitty henchmen. Lina is the only henchmen of the lot I would consider decent. Devona, Thom, and Stephen are better than most wammos, so no complaints here. That leaves Reyna or Aidan and their craptacular Practiced Stance and Kindle Arrows to round out what passes for a team. The other campaigns have decent henchmen, why can't Tyria?

Take humans? I think not. The pugs I've been in for HM have really soured things for me. It's not like normal mode where you can still get through the mission even when you have retarded wammo battle resing with Resurrect or the party leader agro pulling with Koss. Sadly, those are my actual HM experiences for this past weekend.

Most of the people who are worth doing HM with have already completed it or aren't interested in doing it at all.

Cacheelma · May 28, 2007, 12:31 PM // 12:31

They want us to team with each other, but for some reasons the "search" panel that we have is limited to.....local area only.

Tell me, in which mission/outpost do you see more than 1 district? Yes, correct, the main towns (LA, Kamadan, Kaineng) in which nobody cares about teaming since they're too busy using GW's robust trading system (Chat panel)....

So...with only 1 district, the Search panel isn't really any more convenient than....say..."Monk LFG mission+Bonus" spam every minute or so.

Recap: If Anet really want us to play with each other, give us some kind of global LFG system. Otherwise, just give us the option to use full hero team ALREADY.

Patrick Smit · May 28, 2007, 12:38 PM // 12:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Some Guru Named Kai

7 heroes is AI overkill, PvE would be a breeze even with hard mode. It would take a Harder Mode to then satisfy the QQ'ers.

Although i can agree with u on some of the stuff you wrote, the quoted stuff is quite untrue i would say, The AI is quite retarded, and any AoE enemies will just wipe your party unless you flag em at distances, which makes the party as a whole much less dynamic. Skill use is another drawback of the AI, there are quite a few skills out there which are pretty good, but not in the hands of heroes. AI is retarded at some points, quite good at others, but don't say everything will be a breeze, cause the AI has some serious flaws/drawbacks you will not have with human players (unless they are retarded too)