Curse

Wrath of m0o · Sep 29, 2007, 10:50 PM // 22:50

We dont want better Henchmen.
We want to use the Hero's that we spent the time to unlock, equip, upgrade their armors, and play builds that we want them to play.
You cant do that with Henchmen.

I like to play my Rit, my paragon, my mesmer.
Most Pug Groups on elite missions tell me srry, your class isnt needed for this mission.
Unless you commit to the
Obs Stance Tank
4 Nukers
BIP necro
Healer
Bonder
Alot of this game isnt playable by other characters...
Who says so?
I would at least like to be able to make Failed attempts to prove otherwise.

the_jos · Sep 30, 2007, 02:03 AM // 02:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

I think that Mineria and the_jos attittudes nicely outlined why H/H is preferable to PUGing with general public.

Yes, I have been harsh in my post #345.
Does that have to do with my attitude? Yes.

Why?
Because people are taking subjective views and post them as objective when arguing on this subject.

The main points on those are:
- We must have them, it's impossible to do HM without full hero parties.
This argument is not true, it is possible to do every HM thing in areas with Hench. Is it hard? Yes. Too hard? In some places probably Yes. Impossible? No.

- I cannot play Elite areas (and I paid for those).
Looks like a valid argument but is broken because those elite areas are intended to be played with other humans (hence the lack of henchmen)
You paid for content to be played the way the designers intended it.
The recent nerfs of Slaver's and HoS show that perfect. The game was not working as intended.

Other arguments fall almost all in the "don't hurt anyone, don't change PuGs".
Perfectly valid statements from the view of a solo-player.
Not from the perspective of the PuG player.
However, I tried to avoid the PuG argument as much as possible, since it's a different subject and brings too much points of argument in the discussion.
The discussion can be helt without touching the PuG subject.

Let's take a look look at the posting by ChaoticCoyote,#247
Nr 1-3, 7 mainly target teaming up, that's PuG or similar, won't touch that (I know it's a bit more than that).
Nr 4 deals on equipping heroes. However, only a handfull will ever see use. There is no point in equipping the rest then...
Nr 5 deals with new game strategy. True, but only from the solo-player perspective.
Nr 6 is on the 'possible potential'. H&H get the job done, comparing to what is possible with full hero teams is talking about 'nice to have'.
Sure you can do more with more heroes, just like my guild team can do more than you with 7 heroes and just like [eE] can do more than my guild team.
Nr 8 deals with the interface. This will indeed not be broken when the additional heroes are handled as additional henchmen.
However, if hench are not good enough, we need better hench. No, you don't want that because of point 4, equipping heroes.
However, you are forgetting about the players that don't have heroes. They should be able to play the same thing as you, only harder perhaps.
They paid for the content (proph and/or factions), so they should be able to play all, right?
Nr 9, teaming up with human with bad heroes
Sounds good, however, it would not benefit the player with the bad heroes as much as the one with the good heroes.
Why? Because the bad heroes won't be used and will not get maxed if they are not level 20. Skills also won't appear like magic on bad heroes.
The player with the bad heroes still has to invest in them.
It's also very possible that someone demands to use his heroes only because they are uber leet and the rest just sucks.
Which brings us to the PuG which I wanted to avoid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

I tend to see them as complementary requests, for all that you clearly don't.

Well, I can observe it as two requests, however, there is this thing called resource problem (as already mentioned slightly in the original post).
A-net has X programmers/designers working on Y things.
What is happening here is that people are demanding a change for something that in my opinion is nothing more than a 'nice to have' feature (I know opinions differ on this).
When A-net dedicates resources to A, they have to stop working on B or cannot start working on C.

Now we have the bugs on various forums. Those would be priority 1
Then we have the broken parts of the game. Those would be priority 2
Then we have the 'nice to have' features. Priority 3

You know my opinion on the 7 heroes topic and a teaming/scheduling feature.

Burst Cancel · Sep 30, 2007, 03:29 AM // 03:29

People continue to ignore the crux of the issue: the fact that people, if given the option, are likely to prefer full hero parties to PuGs - or worse, that many already prefer hero/hench parties to PuGs.

Arguing about heroes is obscuring the issue. If you have a situation where a significant portion of the playerbase would rather take 7 terrible AI members over 7 other real players, you are dealing with a serious problem of an entirely different nature than simple heroes vs. hench.

Players should want to party with others. Once you've reached the point where players are forced to party with others because they don't have the tools available to play the way they'd rather play, you've already lost them.

Edge Martinez · Sep 30, 2007, 05:16 AM // 05:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

People continue to ignore the crux of the issue: the fact that people, if given the option, are likely to prefer full hero parties to PuGs - or worse, that many already prefer hero/hench parties to PuGs.

Arguing about heroes is obscuring the issue. If you have a situation where a significant portion of the playerbase would rather take 7 terrible AI members over 7 other real players, you are dealing with a serious problem of an entirely different nature than simple heroes vs. hench.

Players should want to party with others. Once you've reached the point where players are forced to party with others because they don't have the tools available to play the way they'd rather play, you've already lost them.

Well, after an hour of wasting my time in Umbral Grotto trying to get into a PUG to go kill a boss... any boss, I'm pretty much fed up. It's actually to the point of sucking. Apparently having a warrior there is not always good, because you have to be the right friggin type of warrior... and there can only be one, because god forbid you have to replace one SF cookie cutter ele. In hindsight, this game pretty much fails at the whole social thing. It's either play with people, but you have to have a certain weapon/stats/skillbar and play by the book all the time, or you do what you can with Lina, Mehnlo (aka "Hey, let's go see what those red dots are), etc.

Icy DS · Sep 30, 2007, 05:28 AM // 05:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edge Martinez

Well, after an hour of wasting my time in Umbral Grotto trying to get into a PUG to go kill a boss... any boss, I'm pretty much fed up. It's actually to the point of sucking. Apparently having a warrior there is not always good, because you have to be the right friggin type of warrior... and there can only be one, because god forbid you have to replace one SF cookie cutter ele. In hindsight, this game pretty much fails at the whole social thing. It's either play with people, but you have to have a certain weapon/stats/skillbar and play by the book all the time, or you do what you can with Lina, Mehnlo (aka "Hey, let's go see what those red dots are), etc.

I have heroed and hench everything I have ever done (I'm using an assassin) and have never had these problems with henchmen...maybe you should not suck and learn to flag your heroes then pull? QQ for the poor pver...

Edge Martinez · Sep 30, 2007, 05:32 AM // 05:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icy DS

I have heroed and hench everything I have ever done (I'm using an assassin) and have never had these problems with henchmen...maybe you should not suck and learn to flag your heroes then pull? QQ for the poor pver...

EDIT; Know what, it's not even worth my account on guru. Whatever dude.

zwei2stein · Sep 30, 2007, 11:20 AM // 11:20

Quote:

Why?
Because people are taking subjective views and post them as objective when arguing on this subject.

And then you take your subjective view and counter with it? not cool.

Quote:

The main points on those are:
- We must have them, it's impossible to do HM without full hero parties.
This argument is not true, it is possible to do every HM thing in areas with Hench. Is it hard? Yes. Too hard? In some places probably Yes. Impossible? No.

Maybe some people do not want to spend fricking X hours of carefull pulls and max concentration ... There is line between hard-but-doable-and-fun and hard,-doable-but-not-fun-at-all. If you want example, All elite areas expect DoA are case one.

Quote:

- I cannot play Elite areas (and I paid for those).
Looks like a valid argument but is broken because those elite areas are intended to be played with other humans (hence the lack of henchmen)
You paid for content to be played the way the designers intended it.
The recent nerfs of Slaver's and HoS show that perfect. The game was not working as intended.

Oh, did they remove hero/henchability of Slavers? No, the fix was completelly different, so it doe not really apply. Being able to skip 3/4 of dungeon was obvious bug, they fixed it (as they fixed other similar stuff). If they did stuff like ban heroes from elite missions, then, you would have point.

I have yet to see Dev come out and claim that "elite stuff must be played with reall people".

Besides, i can easily argue that disalowing henches from elite areas was just afterthought. After all, prohecies elite access had L15 heroes. It was easier not to allow them at all then get tons of "henches suck in fow" threads. NF/F access had to mirror it since you would get people complain on how unfair it is that prohecies people cant take in hench...

Quote:

Other arguments fall almost all in the "don't hurt anyone, don't change PuGs".
Perfectly valid statements from the view of a solo-player.
Not from the perspective of the PuG player.
However, I tried to avoid the PuG argument as much as possible, since it's a different subject and brings too much points of argument in the discussion.
The discussion can be helt without touching the PuG subject.

You might have noticed that generally, average pug person is not taken that much seriously/with much sympathy. They kinda earned it.

I share concern for people who group with people because of people ... friends, guildies, forumers ... but they are not affected at all. Friend who would rather 7-hero than play with you is not friend and similar applies to Guildies

---

But my main argument why i would like 7H is that it simply creates whole new game for me ... deeper and more fun (since developing group builds and stuff is fun for me.), you cant really have 7 people slave you for that kind of stuff.

the_jos · Sep 30, 2007, 02:32 PM // 14:32

Quote:

But my main argument why i would like 7H is that it simply creates whole new game for me ... deeper and more fun (since developing group builds and stuff is fun for me.), you cant really have 7 people slave you for that kind of stuff.

That's something I do understand and value.
For people that want to play solo this is a welcome addition, no argument on that.
Since A-net adverticed the game as 'soloable' (well, the original GW, without HM) it's also a fair request.
That does not mean it's something that must be done and it does also not mean others are not affected by this change in the game.
I am trying point out where the arguments used by people are flawed in my opinion, which you can or cannot agree on.

Asking for something as a 'would be nice to have' is something different than demanding something as a 'need'.
If you are saying there is a need, it means something is broken.
If that's true and I stated before that I believe that's the case on some points, it's the question if the best solution for this problem is adding more heroes. And that solution solves the problem for every player, including those that have no access to heroes when the problems are in Prophecies or Factions.

Arguments like "I have 25 heroes and pimp them all, but can use only 3 of them" are arguments in the 'nice to have' category and not 'need'.

On the subject of the elite areas.
I don't think it was an afterthought.
Deep and Urgoz's were made before the introduction of heroes.
Best example is Deep: it does have features that are impossible to play with a team with hench in it that you cannot control.
For example, the Aspect of Lethargy room requires 5 players to stay on platforms while the rest gets through a gate.
Without the possibility to flag hench (which was not possible back then) this is impossible to do in a team with henchmen.

To get on the PuG subject for this argument.
Honestly, I don't care about PuGs in general. I have guild/friends that I can play with most of the time. Pick-up is nice to fill a guild/friends team.
I'm also not in favor of forcing people to team up with other humans.
It may sound like that, but force does not work.
However, for others in this game PuGs are a way to make friends and find a guild (not those adverticing in outposts).

Friends and guildies however are already affected by hench and heroes.
If I want to do something and they are not available right away (or in very short period of time) I just load H&H and proceed on my own.
Meaning I also won't be available for the time I need to do whatever I want.
This has nothing to do with my will to team up and a lot with my available time.
When I want to play an unscheduled guild event with 8 humans, it will take up to an hour of waiting before I have assembled a team (if it even starts at all).
If I do the same thing with H&H it will take me 5 mins to set a team and start right away.

I won't blame heroes alone.
4 campaigns with normal and hard mode contribute.
Titles contribute.
I know from experience that people are most willing to play those missions/vanquish they need for title.
The game already shifted from social to personal goals.

In my opinion the teaming up option should always be the preferred option.
This does not mean that things should be impossible for solo-players, but it should mean that the effort of teaming up should be compensated somehow.

The compensation for teaming with the current setup is that 2 humans can take 6 heroes.
It's not the additional human that benefits teaming the most, it's the heroes.
After that, replacing heroes with humans benefits the team the most, but not as much as the additional human with heroes.
Consider this.
When adding one human, he has about double the value of a hero.
It's not possible to execute complex strategies with 6 AI heroes.
When more humans are added, the value of each human rises, since they are able to execute more complex strategies.
Assuming hench don't have value at all compared to humans and heroes, replacing them does not 'cost' anything.
Taking the assumptions stated above, the additional value of a human player to a H&H team would be 2.5 humans.
He replaces 4 hench with no value and adds himself (1) and 3 heroes (0.5 each).
Replacing one hero with the next human would add a value of about 0.5 (since heroes have the relative value of about 0.5 humans, taking one out costs 0.5). When adding more humans, the relative value of heroes decreases, making adding more humans more profitable.
So with a 7 human/1 hero team the relative value of the hero will be a lot lower than 0.5, more like 0.2 or 0.1. Adding an other human adds almost a full human.

So, in the current situation the first human that joins has a value of 2.5.
When that same human joins a team with 7 heroes, his value will not be 2.5, it will be 0.5 instead.
It would be somewhat less dramatic when the last 4 heroes work like hench (so no controls, only skills/equipment), but still the value of the additional human will not even be close to 1.

When the additional value of a human player is less than 1, without other compensation for teaming, it will affect not only PuGs but also guild, friend and forum teams.
Not because people rather play with 7 heroes, but because the effort of teaming is not worth it anymore except when teaming for social reasons only.
The moment people want to achieve goals (the large majority of the players, I think) 7 heroes > teaming.

This is one of my main reasons to be very carefull about the introduction of 7 hero teams.

Burst Cancel · Sep 30, 2007, 03:01 PM // 15:01

The compensation for the "effort of teaming up" is that human players are supposed to be much better. The fact that they aren't is the fault of the human players, because frankly, the hero AI is terrible.

The assertion that most people want to achieve goals rather than social play is actually an argument in favor of seven heroes. After all, if these people don't care about social play, it doesn't matter if they're playing solo or not.

The takeaway here is that the social aspect of the game crumbled because of the people themselves - it has little to do with heroes.

lyra_song · Sep 30, 2007, 10:40 PM // 22:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

The takeaway here is that the social aspect of the game crumbled because of the people themselves - it has little to do with heroes.

Since adding 7 heroes will not fix that problem, and in fact adding more hero slots ignores the problem altogether, why is it being considered as an option, if the social aspect is really the crux of the matter?

Maybe instead of trying to ignore the problem and say "Oh what the hell, its hopeless, everyone's a moron but me, ill just go play with heroes.", we could be coming up with solutions for viable upgrades to the system that encourages partying with people.

For example.
If 2 people with heroes were doing GW:EN point farming, they get bonuses at random intervals, and the bonuses are awarded per person, not to the party.
Like, i would get a boss hunt, and my guildie would get rampage. It forces the party to have contradicting interests. One person has a rampage and wants to kill more baddies really fast, but i have to run across the map and get the bosses.

If you did GW:EN point farming solo, the bonuses only matter to you, and you dont have the problem of dealing with another person's contradicting interests.

This is one of those flaws in the game design that rewards solo play more. 7 heroes or H/H, the person soloing will have an easier time.

A simple fix would be that bonuses should be uniform for the whole team (with exception to those who are ineligible for bonuses).

=-=

GW has a very very poor social system. You enter towns and everyone is a stranger. Our friendlist is incredibly limited. Its difficult to keep track of people. Other MMOs have mail systems, message boards, and all sorts of ways to meet and keep track of people.

A better, more intuitive friendlist
Reduce the number of districts (someone proposed removing all districts except international districts in non-major outposts)
Improve the party search system more
Reward veterans for partying with less experienced players (the so called mentoring project someopne posted a while back)
Improved things for parties (like bosses that only spawn on full human parties)

The only time i get these sorts of vibes is during holiday events when theres LOTS of people in one town or in Pre. I want GW to be vibrant and fun and exciting again. It shouldnt BE a burden. It shouldnt be forced. But creating ways so good people can find the other good people, and ways to help the people who arent as good would be better for the gaming environment and not just for those who play the game solo.

Burst Cancel · Sep 30, 2007, 11:18 PM // 23:18

If you have suggestions for improving social play, make a thread in the suggestions forum.

The reason seven heroes is being discussed is because it gives solo players better tools. If we're going to assume that people are goal-oriented, then it logically follows that the game should be built around achieving said goals.

Your improvements ignore most of the complaints about PuGs. A better party search feature, fewer districts, etc. wouldn't make any difference to me or many of the others in GW that have abandoned PuGing. Our negative experiences are a direct result of the people we played with, and has absolutely nothing to do with any in-game system for or against partying.

In point of fact, if a majority of players really wanted to party, they would find ways to do so regardless, and heroes/henchmen wouldn't even be a factor. The problem is that exactly the opposite is true - many players don't care to party, and adding seven heroes only helps them. Incentive systems are counterproductive - you want people to party because they like partying, not because they get better drops, more exp, etc.

If you want a good community, tweaking the game isn't enough. If the people don't get along, nothing the game does is going to matter.

lyra_song · Oct 01, 2007, 12:12 AM // 00:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

If you have suggestions for improving social play, make a thread in the suggestions forum.

The reason seven heroes is being discussed is because it gives solo players better tools. If we're going to assume that people are goal-oriented, then it logically follows that the game should be built around achieving said goals.

But some of those goals were never meant to be achieved solo.

agree or disagree?

Burst Cancel · Oct 01, 2007, 02:32 AM // 02:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

But some of those goals were never meant to be achieved solo.

agree or disagree?

I don't know what Anet intended. However, it doesn't matter if they weren't meant to be achieved solo - is there any logical reason for why they couldn't be solo'd now?

Furthermore, seven heroes wouldn't be limited to elite areas - they would be available everywhere. Better tools for everyone, all the time.

lyra_song · Oct 01, 2007, 04:04 AM // 04:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

I don't know what Anet intended. However, it doesn't matter if they weren't meant to be achieved solo - is there any logical reason for why they couldn't be solo'd now?

Furthermore, seven heroes wouldn't be limited to elite areas - they would be available everywhere. Better tools for everyone, all the time.

Well there is still the factor of design. I think thats a pretty big factor.

People are mad about people forcing other people to play a certain way. How about forcing your playstyle on a design not meant for it?

If an area is designed to be beaten with difficult tactics (like team splitting), and such that they dont even have henchmen, wouldn't it be logical that such an area was not meant for solo players?

One area thats VERY difficult to do solo is Aurora Glade, since it requires running crystals to attune the pedestals, before the flagging system, i dont know if it was even possible to do it without another person.

But I really only refer to the Deep since thats the only area imo thats a true example of a required team ability in Guild Wars.

If Guild Wars was set up to allow soloing in the deep, you would require 11 heroes. Not 7. Now ive shown you what an interface looks like with 7...add 4 more to that. Lets look past the clutter, the 11 flags and controls.

Lets look at the mission itself. Even good humans players fail in this mission. Its not a very friendly mission and requires strict positioning and movement. Something very very difficult to do with heroes.

I dont consider 7 heroes better tools. Better tools for killing maybe. For exploring maybe. I've said before that adding 7 heroes changes the gameplay from an MMO to an RTS. I am serious about this.

Such a change affects ALL players because of a simple thing, the lowest common denominator. It changes the game dynamic.

Guild Wars missions and quests are already VERY VERY simplistic.

Go here, kill this guy.
Go here, grab this, kill this guy.
Go here kill this guy, but dont kill that guy.
Go here, keep this guy from dying, kill everyone else.
Bring this to that guy, then protect him and kill everyone else.

All very simple. It has to be simple so that solo players can do it without anyone's help.

I don't know about you, but to me, this is a hindrance to what the game could have been and limits the game design.

Guild Wars has possibilities for great missions that require teamwork and tactics and can produce a real challenge for its players.

REAL challenges, not based on mob numbers or mob strength. Because thats what heroes and henches can handle at the most.

We will never get puzzles that require any real team strategy, because of the solo factor. The Hidden City of Ahdashim has some interesting puzzles, but it can be solved by one player. Our dungeons will always be simplistic hack and slash.

Maybe thats why pugs are so dumb? Theres no way to weed out the weak because our challenges just require us to bulldoze our way through it?

-=--=-=
Burst: In reference to earlier, forcing someone (or perhaps bribing with benefits) to do something they dont want to do can be justifyable but only in situations that entail the greater good of the group.

as per your example, wanting people to have sex with others even if they dont want to. I can point you to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6990802.stm

Japan also is facing a demographic crisis where their age pyramid will invert.

*shrug*

I know i cant change your mind since the PUG experience has been negative for you.

Isileth · Oct 01, 2007, 04:17 AM // 04:17

Well Lyra not adding 7 heroes wont make the missions any more complex or require any new tactics, because they still have to be accessible to those who use h/h.

And adding 7 wouldnt make them any worse.

We also accept there are a few places that cant be done with heroes alone, however it is only a few and a hell of a lot less than what the solo player cant currently do.

And really MMORPGs arent games that require a lot of intelligence or tactics. They are pretty much bog standard hack and slash. Yes there are a few inavative games out there but when you look at which online games are doing best it tends to be those that stick to the simple gameplay that people can just jump in and get going with.

And GW is one of these games, no matter how many heroes it does or doesnt have it will remain that way. It was built upon people being able to solo. That was the original design, people could choose.

It started with henchmen now we have 3 heroes. Anet certainly isnt moving backwards on the issue. And adding an extra 4 heroes would be a good step forwards again.

Lord Sojar · Oct 01, 2007, 04:31 AM // 04:31

They are not going to give you 7 heroes no matter how much you discuss it. They don't care. It is pointless to even continue to try to sway them to do so. Save your energy for grinding titles, you need it. Besides, if you are going to get ANET to listen to issues again, Heroes are the LEAST of your worries.

zwei2stein · Oct 01, 2007, 07:56 AM // 07:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

But some of those goals were never meant to be achieved solo.

agree or disagree?

Then why are they so ... anti-party oriented.

Reputation farming bonuses were mentioned and they are most illustrative: even if people are doing same thing, game system still forces them apart for better efectiveness.

If there was "Eyewitness" efect ("For 180 seconds, whenever you gain repuration points, you get 1 extra point for each player in party") for title grind stuff, you would see a LOT of parties with 8 humans. To the extreme that they would refuse to fill in rest of team with heroes if not enough people are out there.

There is a lot of stuff possible:

i.e. "Mentor bonus": If you already finished mission on highest reward level (or got protector title), you get Y gold for each party member who reaches new reward level on mission (bonus per reward level, scaling per dificulty of mission). You would have experts start parties, coordinate them and pull them throught missions, because if he suceeds on master reward he can get as much as Y gold * 3 * 7. if y is as low as 100g, you get 2100 gold. Also, profit does not go down that much if you have several mentors. ...

You can have a lot of neat bonuses for playing with people and helping out, but this game gives none.

Not that this stuff would make me party more, but it would be neat, and for sure a lot more helpfull than party search or so for people liking humans.

Wrath of m0o · Oct 01, 2007, 08:12 AM // 08:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

They are not going to give you 7 heroes no matter how much you discuss it.

Yes we are.. I just got off the phone with Jeff O'brian, and he said its a done deal, we should have them by Christmas.

the_jos · Oct 01, 2007, 11:32 AM // 11:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

In point of fact, if a majority of players really wanted to party, they would find ways to do so regardless, and heroes/henchmen wouldn't even be a factor. The problem is that exactly the opposite is true - many players don't care to party, and adding seven heroes only helps them.

I don't fully agree with this statement.
I believe a lot of people still do want to team up (with good players).
There are two problems here:
- There is no way to know who the good players are except when you have played with them before
- It's faster to load up H&H than to wait for a human player to show.
Everyone has limited time, so loading H&H for things that can be done without too much trouble is far more beneficial than waiting for a player.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

We also accept there are a few places that cant be done with heroes alone, however it is only a few and a hell of a lot less than what the solo player cant currently do.

Here we go again.
Areas the solo player can't currently do (except farming):
Deep, Urgoz's, DoA, FoW, UW.

Areas the solo player can do, but may require a lot of effort (too much for some, but they can be done):
Every area/mission with hench available.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Then why are they so ... anti-party oriented.

That's a good question.
I really don't know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

Maybe thats why pugs are so dumb? Theres no way to weed out the weak because our challenges just require us to bulldoze our way through it?

I'm so going to hate myself for saying this....

Just look for bambi, wolfie, tigger (btw, I don't even have bambi) emotes or other PvP titles and you know that player is not the worsed you can get.
The only current way to tell someone is most probably not a dumb player is looking at PvP titles.

I'm afraid there is no way this is going to change, except when A-net implements a title track that can't be gotten without the player actually active participating in hard challenges.
Preferably with a fixed set of skills for each challenge, so people have to rely on playing skill.
The first challenges can be solo, so people can get used to the skills.
The later challenges should be teamed, where people can even team up with guildies/alliance/friends/PuG. Heroes not allowed. The only way to beat the challenges is for every player to participate, there is no way someone can AFK and wait for the rest to finish.

Titles 1-5 could be the solo-ones.
These show you have mastered several builds for your profession in increasing difficult environments.
For good PvE players, those can be skipped.
Titles 6-10 are the team titles with increasing difficulty.
Here the player has to show he not only masters the builds, but can also play them in a team.
The title does not count for title track and can be enabled without affecting other titles, so people can see your 'rank'.

This would probably generate the same discrimination as fame, but it seems it's the only way to weed out the worst players.

Isileth · Oct 01, 2007, 11:53 AM // 11:53

jos while you could go in to some areas with h/h.
Who is really going to be taking a warrior with less than 8 skills and charge on their bar into HM?

Yes we can currently access these areas, but why should the solo player not be able to take a decent team into these areas?

We cant even take 64 skills into some areas! (By some areas thats actually most of the game, over half the game at anyrate)