Curse

Arkantos · Jul 13, 2008, 10:34 AM // 10:34

Quote:

7 heroes is over powered.

6 humans with ursan blessing and 2 humans with seed of life +7 other skills is overpowered. Point?

Lady Raenef · Jul 13, 2008, 10:42 AM // 10:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Overpowered? Compared to a full guild team carrying, say, an Imbagon, a Dslash Warrior, Sabway, and other existing overpowered abilities? I think not.

A full team of heroes is overpowered. Three is plenty to get through most of the game. The guild team you mentioned is more effective because it's a team of say: eight players. Yours is one. You deserve to be weaker. Guild Wars can be played with people, or alone. They have given you the alone. If you think you need more heroes you continue playing the game, then you obviously need to rethink strategies.

I completely disagree with your post. Sometimes, I have more fun pugging with random people because of that social aspect. Who cares if you fail the mission? Try again. No one guaranteed that you're going to 'win! Win! Win!' or everything you touch turns to gold and makes you happy. If a video game was easy, there'd be no point to playing it. The game is already easy with three heroes and a full team of henchmen. I'd say, deal with it. You can all deal with it. If I really can't beat an area, I grab a friend. He throws his heroes at me, we go beat stuff. Yay.

/notsigned

I voted 'no' because I'm not lazy.

BTW, please don't sputter out your 'ursan build, ftl' garbage at me. I don't want to rofl right now.

Zahr Dalsk · Jul 13, 2008, 10:45 AM // 10:45

I've been doing fine everywhere with heroes and henchmen; the reason I, like most other H/H players, want the cap removed, is not because we need help (except in elite missions; cannot be done with a human and 3 heroes) is because it would be more fun. Why is it that you seem to be completely ignoring that and assuming it is a request to make the game easier? I'd be happy, personally, with a full hero team and the game's difficulty spiked upwards.

GG

Lady Raenef · Jul 13, 2008, 10:53 AM // 10:53

If the game is fine for you now, why must we cross the cap limit? If all you're trying to avoid is QQing with PuG's, then I really don't see a point. That's all you stated in your OP. I'm sorry, but you don't really strike a point that would move Anet to remove the cap. Period. Especially if I'm not moved. I can't even do Slaver's Exile with heroes.

BlackSephir · Jul 13, 2008, 11:19 AM // 11:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Raenef

A full team of heroes is overpowered.

Compared to what? Because obviously not compared to full team of 8 people.
What a pathetic "logic".

Zahr Dalsk · Jul 13, 2008, 11:25 AM // 11:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Raenef

If the game is fine for you now, why must we cross the cap limit? If all you're trying to avoid is QQing with PuG's, then I really don't see a point. That's all you stated in your OP. I'm sorry, but you don't really strike a point that would move Anet to remove the cap. Period. I can't even do Slaver's Exile with heroes.

The game's difficulty is too easy, but that's not the point here - what heroes would do is allow us more freedom in party control and the freedom to run what team builds we want to, as well as opening access to elite missions for hero parties. In short it will add more variety to the game experience and make it more fun for us, and will not inconvenience you in any way at all.

You seem to be under the impression that the reason to want a removal of the cap is making the game easier or to have an overpowered team even though we have repeatedly stated that it will not be overpowered; indeed it will be balanced quite well, with a level of power a bit under a guild team. I have to wonder if you're trolling or just don't read our posts.

Let me say something about difficulty, as well - until Ursan is nerfed, we can pretty much ignore difficulty. The same goes for any accusations of overpoweredness - Ursan destroys all such possible accusations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Raenef

Especially if I'm not moved.

I'm pretty sure that you not being convinced has little to do with whether ArenaNet will be convinced.

Also, please explain to me how PUGs will be hurt by people who already avoid them continuing to avoid them (which we'll do either way) and how exactly heroes are overpowered (no one's actually given a valid explanation on this one, leading to me believe it's just wind).

Lady Raenef · Jul 13, 2008, 11:49 AM // 11:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSephir

What a pathetic "logic".

As is yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Also, please explain to me how PUGs will be hurt by people who already avoid them continuing to avoid them (which we'll do either way) and how exactly heroes are overpowered (no one's actually given a valid explanation on this one, leading to me believe it's just wind).

You mentioned that the game was meant to be played 'solo,' however you're complaining that you can't solo comfortably. The game also didn't mention that there will be arrogant players who will refuse to take you in their group because they're too 'leet' to deal with you.

You're the type of player that makes me sick to my stomach. There isn't anything to be accomplished here other than making the game more easier. Three heroes is a good cap, because ArenaNet capped it there for a reason. If seven heroes doesn't hurt the game, why don't they give them the PvE skills you earn and already let you implement seven heroes? There's obviously a reason you're untouched with.

So far, you keep throwing this argument at me: "It's not intended to make the game easier." but yet, everything I have read points to "makes PvE easier to do by yourself."

Sorry. This idea isn't going to pull through.

You keep saying it's unfair for a team of eight humans to be better than a team of one human, three heroes, four henchmen. So, seven heroes helps balance the score. It's obvious, that there were some areas (such as elite) that just weren't meant to be done alone. Like PvP, you're forced to ally with people. If you want to play with computers, but still be in PvP, they introduced Hero Battles, and the Zaishen.

BlackSephir · Jul 13, 2008, 12:30 PM // 12:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Raenef

As is yours.

My logic doesn't consist of "8 players is okay, but 7 heroes and 1 player is overpowered". But nice "no urs" right there, totally unexpected. And I like how you decided NOT TO explain how it is overpowered. Obvious troll is obvious.

chfanfiction · Jul 13, 2008, 12:42 PM // 12:42

I just can't wait until GW2 when you can solo the entire freaking game. Not sarcasm.

Lady Raenef · Jul 13, 2008, 12:49 PM // 12:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSephir

My logic doesn't consist of "8 players is okay, but 7 heroes and 1 player is overpowered". But nice "no urs" right there, totally unexpected. And I like how you decided NOT TO explain how it is overpowered. Obvious troll is obvious.

Unlike a team of eight players, a team of seven heroes is like controlling eight players to yourself. To me, having seven heroes in my arsenal would give me the option of getting what I want, when I want it. I could make any option come true, whilst with players, not so much is true. Not everyone is in a guild with players completely active. Nor do you see players often in groups of eight in the first place. Why? Heroes. Because two players and six heroes has been plenty. The last time I saw a group of eight players, they were getting ready for a UW trip. The last time I saw eight players in a non-elite area, were PuGs who went together in a group and completely failed the mission, because they appeared back later. Eight players isn't common. Heroes already help enough as it is. Seven is just overkill.

BlackSephir · Jul 13, 2008, 01:03 PM // 13:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Raenef

Unlike a team of eight players, a team of seven heroes is like controlling eight players to yourself.

What, never heard of something like "team leader"? And what does "controlling eight players to yourself" even mean? Does it mean they won't run off or go afk like typical pug retards? Yeah, guess what- that's one of many points why people go with H/H.

Quote:

To me, having seven heroes in my arsenal would give me the option of getting what I want, when I want it. I could make any option come true, whilst with players, not so much is true.

Maybe you should team up with decent players once in a while.

Quote:

Not everyone is in a guild with players completely active. Nor do you see players often in groups of eight in the first place. Why? Heroes. Because two players and six heroes has been plenty

.
How sad you "forgot" to mention that in order to go with 2 players 6 heroes you need another account or a friend. And having to depend on a friend defeats the sole purpose of H/H.

Quote:

The last time I saw a group of eight players, they were getting ready for a UW trip. The last time I saw eight players in a non-elite area, were PuGs who went together in a group and completely failed the mission, because they appeared back later. Eight players isn't common. Heroes already help enough as it is. Seven is just overkill.

Outstanding logic, 7 heroes are overpowered because pugs fail miserably.

Oh, and also you didn't point out any specifics as to why 7 heroes are overpowered. "option of getting what I want, when I want it, I could make any option come true". How is that not possible with a team of decent players with a nice team build?

Kinn · Jul 13, 2008, 01:09 PM // 13:09

The problem with heroes is that Guild Wars was designed to be a multiplayer game. With a party of 8, roughly speaking, each human player can be considered as contributing 1/8th of the total combat effectiveness of the party. That's never strictly true of course; you can attach more importance to monks, the damage dealers, the interrupters, or whatever, but let's just run with this for a minute.

Knowing that your contribution to the party is about 1/8th sounds like something that could be accepted in a multiplayer environment where you are part of a team of real people. The problem arises when you project this contribution onto a single player game comprising a team of one real player and 7 AIs.

When you are playing solo with Hero/Henches, you can pretty much approach a mob and let the AI do the majority of the work. Even without 7 heroes, for a lot of the game you can just press c-space, then afk until the battle music stops. Anet know this is a problem - that's why henchmen have crap skillbars, and that's why we're currently limited to 3 heroes.

BlackSephir · Jul 13, 2008, 01:14 PM // 13:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kinn

When you are playing solo with Hero/Henches, you can pretty much approach a mob and let the AI do the majority of the work. Even without 7 heroes, for a lot of the game you can just press c-space, then afk until the battle music stops. Anet know this is a problem - that's why henchmen have crap skillbars, and that's why we're currently limited to 3 heroes.

And when you are playing with other people you can pretty much do nothing and let the rest of your teammates do the job. Limit the team size to 2.

Lady Raenef · Jul 13, 2008, 01:18 PM // 13:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSephir

And when you are playing with other people you can pretty much do nothing and let the rest of your teammates do the job. Limit the team size to 2.

You're still contributing and the likelihood that you'll sit there and do nothing isn't so likely.

They do limit team sizes, by the way. Yep, teams come in sizes of four, six, eight, and twelve. Before you sputter that the four player areas are areas like Ascalon that can be done by yourself, in hard mode it becomes a bit different. Whilst, you can still solo those areas in HM, even by yourself and three heroes.

Marverick · Jul 13, 2008, 02:23 PM // 14:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Raenef

A full team of heroes is overpowered. Three is plenty to get through most of the game. The guild team you mentioned is more effective because it's a team of say: eight players. Yours is one. You deserve to be weaker. Guild Wars can be played with people, or alone. They have given you the alone. If you think you need more heroes you continue playing the game, then you obviously need to rethink strategies.

I completely disagree with your post. Sometimes, I have more fun pugging with random people because of that social aspect. Who cares if you fail the mission? Try again. No one guaranteed that you're going to 'win! Win! Win!' or everything you touch turns to gold and makes you happy. If a video game was easy, there'd be no point to playing it. The game is already easy with three heroes and a full team of henchmen. I'd say, deal with it. You can all deal with it. If I really can't beat an area, I grab a friend. He throws his heroes at me, we go beat stuff. Yay.

/notsigned

I voted 'no' because I'm not lazy.

BTW, please don't sputter out your 'ursan build, ftl' garbage at me. I don't want to rofl right now.

Is the difficulty level of the game really supposed to be based on forcing solo players to group with 4 retarded AI with retarded skillbars and no runes? Because that doesn't seem like a very effective difficulty scale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSephir

Maybe you should team up with decent players once in a while.

7 heroes is not an alternative to guildies/friends; it's for when they're not there, whether they've done it already or are busy. This is a multiplayer game; there won't always be someone around who wants to do what you want to do. So shut up with the "go find a friend with heroes" argument already.

Anyway, slight modification that I propose: 7 heroes only allowed in HM, and no EotN PvE skills.

BlackSephir · Jul 13, 2008, 02:28 PM // 14:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Raenef

You're still contributing and the likelihood that you'll sit there and do nothing isn't so likely.

They do limit team sizes, by the way. Yep, teams come in sizes of four, six, eight, and twelve. Before you sputter that the four player areas are areas like Ascalon that can be done by yourself, in hard mode it becomes a bit different. Whilst, you can still solo those areas in HM, even by yourself and three heroes.

And how does your rambling prove that a full hero team is overpowered, while a full team consisting of normal people is not?

Quote:

This is a multiplayer game; there won't always be someone around who wants to do what you want to do. So shut up with the "go find a friend with heroes" argument already.

Oh lawdy, lawdy, did you miss the part when GW was advertised as a game where you can play with people or solo? So shut up and learn what game are you playing.

Zahr Dalsk · Jul 13, 2008, 04:25 PM // 16:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Raenef

As is yours.

You mentioned that the game was meant to be played 'solo,' however you're complaining that you can't solo comfortably. The game also didn't mention that there will be arrogant players who will refuse to take you in their group because they're too 'leet' to deal with you.

You're the type of player that makes me sick to my stomach. There isn't anything to be accomplished here other than making the game more easier. Three heroes is a good cap, because ArenaNet capped it there for a reason. If seven heroes doesn't hurt the game, why don't they give them the PvE skills you earn and already let you implement seven heroes? There's obviously a reason you're untouched with.

So far, you keep throwing this argument at me: "It's not intended to make the game easier." but yet, everything I have read points to "makes PvE easier to do by yourself."

Sorry. This idea isn't going to pull through.

You keep saying it's unfair for a team of eight humans to be better than a team of one human, three heroes, four henchmen. So, seven heroes helps balance the score. It's obvious, that there were some areas (such as elite) that just weren't meant to be done alone. Like PvP, you're forced to ally with people. If you want to play with computers, but still be in PvP, they introduced Hero Battles, and the Zaishen.

Alright, I think it's safe to say at this point that you're not really thinking logically or reading our posts. Even lying at times, as evidenced by your claims that I think PvE is too hard, when I don't.

I don't want an easy game; things like Ursan already make the game too easy. I want a hard game, something of a difficulty that requires me to be awake (the present game doesn't, especially on my paragon who I can already macro to do most of the game for me). So stop saying I want an easy game because that's not what I want, it's not what we want, the game is already laughably easy. If I hear you pull the 'omgz u want teh ez gam!' card again, I'll know that you don't really care about the issue, you just like arguing, and aren't really reading what we're saying.

There are 25 heroes, they are going to waste. The limit on heroes is arbitrary and does not make sense. Maybe it made sense when Nightfall came out; now that Ursan's here there's no balance reason not to, and with PUGs insufferably rude there's no social reason not to. We want the freedom to run a full hero team so we can run the team builds we want, instead of a partial team build and then putting in the outdated henchmen to patch up the rest. There is no reason to limit the amount of heroes.

PUGs will suffer? They've already killed themselves.

It will make PvE too easy? A couple of my characters are an Imbagon and a Godmode Warrior (the others are sin, rit, ele, ranger, monk), and I can tell you that PvE has already been far too easy for far too long.

It will be overpowered? How hard is it to understand that Ursan Blessing is more overpowered than hero teams ever could be? Look at the times for elite missions with Ursan. A hero team will never achieve that because heroes cannot use PvE skills. So explain to me how it will be overpowered.

It gives players control over their whole party? That's exactly the point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Raenef

To me, having seven heroes in my arsenal would give me the option of getting what I want, when I want it.

Exactly, you understand now! We want heroes because it lets us play when we want to, how we want to. Because unlike you, some of us have things to do with our lives and can't unconditionally depend on humans; we may be called away for real life events or simply choose to take a break and AFK; maybe you're one of those hardcore players who used to sit down for a many-hour DoA run, but a lot of us can't put in that amount of playtime and dependability for teammates. And we shouldn't have to in a game where AI are supposed to be just as valid a playstyle as humans.

I love when people oppose something that's never going to affect them, like gay marriage for example, or 7 heroes, just because they can't stand the thought of someone else enjoying something that they don't :\

vandevere · Jul 13, 2008, 04:34 PM // 16:34

If I have to say this a million times, I will.

I just want to have fun when I want to have fun. It's got nothing to do with PUGs, or the general hardness/easiness of the game.

I just want to have fun whenI want to have fun. And real people just don't seem to be around, or interested.

Besides, it's not inconviencing anyone who doesn't want to use Heroes. So, what's the beef?

If it's because you think I'm playing the game in a so-called bad way, that's really not your call to make. I bought and paid for the games-Proph, Factions, NF, and EOTN-same as everyone else, and that means I get to play it the way I want...

Tyla · Jul 13, 2008, 04:41 PM // 16:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSephir

And how does your rambling prove that a full hero team is overpowered, while a full team consisting of normal people is not?

I don't know. Bad troll is bad.

In the case of it being serious...

Heroes are absolutely stupid, can't run a normal bar of decent skills without babysitting or imbalanced attributes, no PvE-only crap and basically you're affecting nobody. There is no rank involved join if you want because it's a party of AI, and those people who want to PuG will still do so.

Oh, and if that's the case we should also nerf Ventrilo. 8 players using this is overpowered!

Quote:

Oh lawdy, lawdy, did you miss the part when GW was advertised as a game where you can play with people or solo? So shut up and learn what game are you playing.

Too true. Henchmen existed from proph for a reason.

Steps_Descending · Jul 13, 2008, 05:06 PM // 17:06

Off-topic : Can I say the OP should really learn to avoid full human pugs, 3 human minds are easier to manage (and evaluate the IQ) than 8 people (and 4 players is in easy to group area).
Don't feel like replying to the OP's anti-pug comments.

On-topic : Yes full Hero team would be a boon to every decent (not good) player.
Is it nescesary? Considering you only need, in the worst of cases, 2 players and 2 hour if you REALLY take your time to do most things in the game; no they are not needed.
What are the chances ANet will tweak its interface and implement the last 4 hero. (what keys do you intend to use to manage 7 (SEVEN) skill bars (dont forget you have to mouse click them)? Do you really feel like playing 8 characters at once?) Tought 1 thing they could do is allow full hero but make only the first 3-4 of them manageable.

EDIT: I voted no because the game feel more right the way it is and, as the poll says, I do dissagree with the OP on many points.
Hadn't noticed he also wanted PvE skills to heros...
Also, they already said you will have 1 hero with you but AI allies will still be present.