Curse

Patrick Smit · Apr 21, 2007, 05:24 AM // 05:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by tytons

if ur not 1...then u should have no prob doing it with henches

...

What I mean is that there is often/always a guy/girl that know how not to play. If u monk (and i do) it becomes extremely obvious, due the fact that they don't kite, need constant attention due bad positioning, and then i didnt discuss skill use yet.

Heroes however have quircks too, but you can work around them, and I feel that for vanquisher and simple missions they will suffice. allowing me to start whenever i feel like it, instead of setting up a PUG which will take time and might blow up in your face in the end.

Its not so much that they are stupid or so, but when you give people advice about how to move and such they often conceive that as offensive criticism, while in fact it is constructive criticism. It will help the player getting better, and me preserving energy. But often players are highly flammable when criticized. The same counts when u mention the use of antagonizing skills on team or even on one skillbar. Its not bad when they spread them correctly on different mobs (for example shadow of fear and spitefull spirit), but when they don't they waste the potential of SS. That hex is better complemented with reckless haste.

mazey vorstagg · Apr 21, 2007, 05:34 AM // 05:34

/signed

I love my heroes!

bhavv · Apr 23, 2007, 08:54 PM // 20:54

Ive just been trying vanquisher in a few areas and the hench monks blow completely. I use damage heroes for my build, using healers instead would mean having to use stupid hench tanks that just killroy everything because they cant be put into defensive mode.

I want to be able to use 7 heroes. Aegis, Protective spirit and Zealous benediction on Khim's AI just completely sux, as does healing breeze on Mhenlo. Not to mention the complete lack of hex removal and energy management on their skill bars.

Or at least update henchmen to 8 'USEFUL' skills that work with their AI, and give them 14 in their primary attributes in hard mode.

Ozric · Apr 23, 2007, 10:35 PM // 22:35

Some of you guys won't be happy until you're able to call in B-52's to soften an area before you ever step foot in it.

/notsigned

Age · Apr 23, 2007, 11:08 PM // 23:08

/Not Signed learn to use real people instead of AI as the game was intended and I would assume that is what HM is for.It is to put back the word cooperative in GW like it stated out to be.When I first started back in beta going ot post it was sort of like HM and I didn't use henchies as I didn't know about them.Then agian I mostly PvPed in RA and Monked in the Tomps now HA.

Learn to group up and cooperate.

legion_rat · Apr 24, 2007, 12:14 AM // 00:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Age

/Not Signed learn to use real people instead of AI as the game was intended and I would assume that is what HM is for.It is to put back the word cooperative in GW like it stated out to be.When I first started back in beta going ot post it was sort of like HM and I didn't use henchies as I didn't know about them.Then agian I mostly PvPed in RA and Monked in the Tomps now HA.

Learn to group up and cooperate.

This would be great if real people didnt rage quit, mass aggro, go afk and everything else. As it stand now I have been running with one to two guildies but what about the people who are not in a guild or are more casual players? If they are not going to buff henches to be useful in hard mode then they should let us take all heros.

~the rat~

edit was because i forget this

/signed

Jarus · Apr 24, 2007, 04:46 PM // 16:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubby

/SIGNED
Henchmen are usually on even with pugs. Heroes are better then pugs and henchmen, and organized teams are better then all.

QFT.

Indeed, organized teams of actual people will always be better than an all-hero team. The problem is, not all of us have the time/opportunity to organize such a thing, so it would be nice to have the next best thing.

bhavv · Apr 24, 2007, 04:47 PM // 16:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Age

/Not Signed learn to use real people instead of AI

I only use real people in PVP, real people in PVE suck to much.

Ive gotten my 3 protector titles now with only using hench + heros, I want to be able to do the same with the gaurdian titles.

Draikin · Apr 25, 2007, 11:01 AM // 11:01

/signed

That some people would not sign because this would make Hard Mode "easy" is downright ridiculous. Last time I checked my heroes weren't suddenly lvl 30...

Soul of the Scythe · Apr 25, 2007, 01:34 PM // 13:34

OMG!! It's called HARD MODE for a reason. I've cleared all of Ascalon with just 3 heroes. If you can clear areas like that with only urself and 3 heroes, then why not just take urself and 3 heroes through every other area on the map if you don't like the henchman. In areas with 8 people all you gotta do is get one guildy and poof! no henchmen needed.

/NOTSIGNED

Kas · Apr 25, 2007, 03:00 PM // 15:00

/not signed
Get off your King Nothing Trip.

tyche7 · Apr 25, 2007, 03:03 PM // 15:03

/signed

hard mode isn't intended to be hard b/c of who you're with. It's intended to be hard b/c of the buffed foes you face.

scottyboysn · Apr 25, 2007, 03:06 PM // 15:06

/signed

i love my heroes

i hate only being able to use 3 of them when i've put so much into them

Made In Ascalon · Apr 25, 2007, 03:29 PM // 15:29

/notsigned

Changing the hero max to 7 in order to make it easier in hard mode is self-defeating reasoning. Too hard for you? Make a human team. PUGs suck? Nothing new, find a group of reliable friends and guildies. Takes too long? Boo hoo, stop whinning, Guild Wars is a community game for a reason.

And honestly, henches are a hell of a lot better than most pugs. I've beaten many missions, such as Vizunah Square (1 human, 3 heros, 12 henchmen), even though EVERYONE in the local area was complaining about how hard it is.

bhavv · Apr 25, 2007, 04:07 PM // 16:07

I dont want 7 heroes to make hard mode easier, I want 7 heroes period for normal and hard mode because I enjoy playing the game with my hero builds.

Hard mode has nothing to do with my opinion, I've wanted 7 heroes since they were first announced.

So far Ive gotten 3 protector titles and legendary skill hunter purely with hench and heroes, I'm now doing explorer, purely with hench and heroes. By the time ive finished that I hope 7 heroes will be in the game so I can start vanquishing.

Tell me how im going to find an experienced pug team to vanquish every area in the game? Im not.

Der Zeitgeist · Apr 25, 2007, 04:12 PM // 16:12

Not a bad idea at all... Some ppl in guild suggest the same thing. Hard Mode is a new thing in the game these days, so occasionally one can find human parties in outposts to play with in HM. But, 3 campaigns, ppl with no guilds for their own reasons, areas with no interest in HM... Maybe having a whole hero party is a good idea. After all, heroes' builds are made by players, so there's a possibility for failure and improvement. And 12 heroes in the game (for now...GWEN promises more...)... It's about time players use them and forget pre made and buffed henchies. 4 party maps should stay 4 party...8 party -> 7 heroes.

Made In Ascalon · Apr 25, 2007, 04:15 PM // 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

I dont want 7 heroes to make hard mode easier, I want 7 heroes period for normal and hard mode because I enjoy playing the game with my hero builds.

Hard mode has nothing to do with my opinion, I've wanted 7 heroes since they were first announced.

So far Ive gotten 3 protector titles and legendary skill hunter purely with hench and heroes, I'm now doing explorer, purely with hench and heroes. By the time ive finished that I hope 7 heroes will be in the game so I can start vanquishing.

Tell me how im going to find an experienced pug team to vanquish every area in the game? Im not.

If you've been doing 3 heroes + 4 henchmen since heroes came out, then will making the max 7 heroes really change your gaming experience at all? Honestly.

strcpy · Apr 25, 2007, 04:52 PM // 16:52

I said something similar in the other thread, might as well say it here too.

There are three classes of players.

One: prefer to play in PUGs, they may use an AI to fill one or two slots at most. Because this is what they want to do anything that even slightly interferes or reduces the available pool is terrible. If they had their way you would most likely be capped at three AI *period*, not just 3 heroes.

Two: play mostly with AI, the only time you PUG is on missions that are either too hard for the AI or need the team to split into multiple autonomous groups. Your not going to PUG anyway and you feel a large part of team builds are denied to you.

Three: you are in an active guild and do not care - you play with guildmates any way.

Every post here could just be reduced to someone saying "One" with replies "OMG - TWO!!!!" then back and forth.

Generally speaking much of both sides are correct: The more heroes one is allowed the fewer people will be willing to PUG but the vast vast majority will not have their play style change - they already have the option to play 95% of how they want. Allowing 7 heroes will make the game easier to play for AI players but if 8 heroes make the game too easy then 8 good humans is even easier. Those seem to be the most common things repeated back and forth.

The difference, as I see it, is one side feels their way is the way to go and wants to force the other side even if the players do not want too. Not a big fan of such things, I prefer to have as many options as one can. However, it appears as if Anet does wish to force things into player interaction and see the AI as "filler" (they have said so quite a number of times and their actions mostly agree) and the 3 hero limit is the compromise. Thus I do not see it going away for a while, maybe sometime after the player base shifts to GW2.

Diaden · Apr 25, 2007, 05:27 PM // 17:27

Heroes aren't really going to help you unless you understand how to use their respective primary classes, anyway. So, it's not really self defeating reasoning to want 7 heroes - people aren't asking for hard mode to be easier, they're asking for more control over their single player experience. More control in the form of a complete hero party will only make things easier if the player knows what he/she is doing. In this regard HM would still be very much a matter of skill and understanding of basic tactics and sound character builds. Heroes become the preferred alternative when the player makes them the preferred alternative..they aren't just magically better - they're made to be better by the players that run them. I reiterate, 7 heroes is still a contest of skill dependent on the player. I can't help it if I make better henchmen than Anet does.

I seem to recall Anet prattling on about wanting to make GW as friendly to play alone as it is to play with friends and 7 Heroes would help do that. Forcing someone to PuG (by providing inadequate hench support) is not going to make them sit around for hours trying to find a group that will let them in (because, you know, maybe they aren't a Necro, Ele, Monk or Warrior), it's just going to make them find something else to do. It's easy to say "join a PuG" as if there's always one forming (good luck finding Vanquisher pugs), as if you always have a couple hours you want to spend spamming the districts rather than actually playing the game. It's a matter of circumstances as well - people who don't have much time to play, inactive guilds, etc.

/signed

thunderai · Apr 25, 2007, 05:43 PM // 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozric

Some of you guys won't be happy until you're able to call in B-52's to soften an area before you ever step foot in it.

/notsigned

I like this idea... but wouldn't the following skill work?

Name: Glints Droppings
Description: A lvl x dragon overflys your location causing x dmg to each adjasent enemy.

Amount of damage is based upon your luck title, the amount of beast mastery you have, and your ability to run out of the way before the droppign cause "nuclear fall out".

Name: Nuclear Fall Out
Description: Each member of your party suffers x dmg per second. Can be tranfered between members of part reguardless of rance.gener.baddy or goody.