Hero Profession Limit

There have been concerns about the ability of mercenaries to introduce imbalance by creating teams with more of a certain profession than other players are able to.

A simple solution to this is to limit the number of heroes of a certain profession to 3 per player (or two, in the case of professions that currently only have 2 heroes).

In other words, no matter how many ritualist mercenaries one has, they would still only be able to bring 2 ritualist heroes into their party.

Of course, if a second player joined the party and brought their own ritualist heroes, then the party would have 4, but each player would still only be able to bring 2 ritualist heroes.

This would allow mercenaries to exist as a nice cosmetic touch to the game without disadvantaging players who don't purchase them.

People already bought merc packs for advantages/prof customization. Jeff described it as a feature of the product in an interview. They can't go removing that functionality now that they've taken money for it.

The easiest solution to this situation IMO is to fix HM armor and therefore eles. Mesway is the only particularly strong merc build, if people could use eles for aoe damage, then a mix of the two would work well enough.

It is not going to work because the merc pack was started because they want to sell this advantage to players.

Foxbat is right. Only way to fix it is to fix armors. Or to fix skills of some other profession which will be a major project.

Until then, simply buy the mercs or play without it.

It doesn't matter what the combination of 7 heroes are, take a look at http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/w...t10477511.html

"They can't go removing that functionality now that they've taken money for it." - Why not, PlayNC did with Tabula Rasa... they decided no one wanted to play it so they killed the game even tho people paid for it.

The game has more than 2-3 professions and some players don't care about which professions their heroes are.

Or just add a few more heroes in game with Guild Wars Beyond, totaling 3 heroes of every profession.

I much rather that they fix the damn melee AI and fix Paragons, Eles and Bow/Traps/nature ritual of rangers.

I much more worried with the damn heroes people already have and can't bring.

I think that this falls into the "what I do when I'm playing the game doesn't affect you at all, so stop trying to ruin all my fun with your hang-ups and rules, man" category.

I don't support any suggestion which only exists to put a cap on fun. That's what this seems to be.

The devs have made something available which you see as unfair, and so it looks like you want to change that decision so that it's more in line with what you consider fair. But the developers clearly consider it fair, so your personal thoughts on it are moot, and so the changes are not needed.

Definitely /notsigned, sorry mate.

I like the fact that someone could have 7 mesmers on a team or 8 monks. I think the creativity being lost by limiting the number of heroes far outweighs the "benefits" you are talking about. If you feel it us unbalanced then save your money and go buy the mercs or stop whining. I own no mercs and have no problem whatsoever with it. Maybe someday I would buy them. My chance of buying them would drastically be reduced if they were to limit the number of a certain profession.

/notsigned

They should have had this in place when mercs where introduced...too late to make such a change now imo.

Yes and end result: NCSoft makes no more money from Tabula Rasa, and completely pulled out of western development outside of Arenanet.

GW1 is still viable and wants your monies. There needs to be confidence in past products if you expect people to keep investing in future ones.

Good for those people, I imagine mercs don't bother them at all, people complaining about an advantage clearly are willing to pick the prof composition that makes a stronger team. I don't think any type of player would be upset either if eles, rangers, or melee AI suddenly became useful.

If merc packs cost $1 there would be absolutely no complaints at all.
Or if everyone could easily afford them at their current price again there would be no complaints.

Its not that anyone really objects to them its just when the price is such that its a little hard to justify spending the cash we tend to whine a little.
Well I do anyway.

It's ok to create imbalance in PvE if you buy merc heroes from the Ig store, but its not ok to create imbalance with skills like BUH/asura scan/AoHM ect.

It seems you are saying that having 4 assassins in a team is imbalanced.

Is that correct?

No.......

Anet makes lots of updates to create balance in PvE by nerfring skills like BUH and asura scan, but they create imbalance in PvE by allowing people to buy merc heroes. Corporate greed.

There is nothing imbalanced by having 4 assassins in a party. Nor 4 ritualists.

Hence merc heroes aren't creating imbalance.

The imbalance arises that 4 or 5 mesmers in a team with a shadow form assassin are so superior to any other combination. In DoA at least, which one of the most stupid places to use as a baseline for balance argument.

Merc heroes are a paid expansion for in game options.

The imbalance arise for other things that aren't related to merc heroes in a direct way.

Merc heroes only facilitates people that bought them to abuse imbalance.

I've never understood why if few abuse it is fine - if more have the ability to do it isn't.

personally i don't care for mercs, but i do agree that it would not be good for ANet to limit how many heroes of a certain proffession could be brought. hell the only way i could think of for them to do this would also limit how many of certain classes can party up together (human or otherwise) and all this would cause is a shitstorm.

leave the profession thingy as it is, fix ele's, rangers, paragons, and whatever else needs updating

Even without buying any mercenaries you can still complete everything in-game with ease, so if someone wants to pay money to make it even easier why not let them?

Then 6+ elementalists would be the problem.If we follow this line of logic to it's end, there was nothing wrong with Shadow Form. Or Ursan. If we assume that there is not some objective standard of fairness, then the entire concept of balance goes out the window, at which point the only logical course of action is to start wishing for a skill that instantly kills all enemies and teleports their drops to us (after all, you don't have to use it if you don't want to, right?).

Spending real money for in-game advantages is anathema to the game's design philosophy. It is the definition of unfair. Machine guns make more sense in the context of the game than that.

The real irony, of course, is that the entire purpose of rules in the context of a game is to create a structure within which fun can be had. A game with no rules is not fun, because anything that can be done within it is without purpose. Otherwise, games wouldn't have rules in the first place.