Curse

MithranArkanere · Jan 21, 2008, 04:07 PM // 16:07

Well... you could give Vanguard points in Ascalon (Since the points are not named Ebon Vanguard, just Vanguard, and Both the Vanguard and the Ebon Varguard are Ascalonian Vanguards)

And Deldrimor in the Shouther, Norther Shiperpeaks and Grenth's Foot print.

But what about Kryta, Maguuma and the Crystal desert?
- Shinning Blade points?

And What about Shing Jea and Kaineng? Imperial service promotion?

Torqual · Jan 21, 2008, 04:32 PM // 16:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mitchel

My personal idea would be:
When you play in places where you can get reputation points, you get XXX amount more, depending on how many people are in your group.

Excellent idea - apply loot scaling principle to point grind.

With point grind being less linear and 'critical' than missions/dungeons, it's the kind of activity that people are more likely to 'risk' in a PUG. This way, you can meet new contacts, and work up to bigger challenges when trust is established.

Hope A-Net is reading.

By the way, I forgot to mention, the only reason I prefer H/H to PUGs is that I know heroes will *NEVER* quit during a mission. The problem with quitters is that once one goes, it often causes a domino-effect.

I would PUG a lot more stuff if leavers were replaced by a hero with the same skillbar and stats.

For example, Wammo gets to 60% DP and /ragequits because of 'noob monk'. They are replaced in party window by 'Tyrian Warrior' .... you know, rather like when you have a copy of a hero in the party.

This is not hard to implement and it would counter a serious PUG-trust issue.

Torqual · Jan 21, 2008, 04:40 PM // 16:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marverick

The quests here can be in AI teams where, for instance, you have to keep your team alive against a team of 4 hammer warriors with condition & hex removal for enough time to win. Any noob running pure healing stuff will get owned pretty quick, and will hopefully realize that pure healing doesn't work.

Perhaps some sort of quest that needs a high DPS (at least 80). Make it only achievable by Warriors, Dervishes, and Assassins. That way people might get away from the mentality that Elementalists do the most damage.

Or, a 4v4 against a team of dangerous casters who need to be shut down. Give them interrupts to prevent nuking and something to remove spirits (Consume Soul as 2nd elite maybe) to stop spirit forest gimmicks. Teach people how to interrupt and shut down.

Could do the same as above except with a team of melee with enchantment removal and stuff to punch through blocking. Teach people how to use blind and curses.

I can see the logic in what you are suggesting, but you are treating matters of taste here as if they are matters of fact.

One of the attractive points about GW is that there are many different ways to counter threats.

If A-Net got involved in trying to promote the 'official' way to play the game, you'd find a bunch of people saying 'screw that, I did it better this way'.

About the closest they have come to this is beginner things like the 'Condition Chaining' quest in Shing Jea.

There are good and bad approaches to stuff (the example of Prot vs Healing being a good one) but that doesn't make it 'Right' and 'Wrong' to do things in a certain way.

GW is a constantly-changing environment with skill balances, loopholes and exploits that are constantly opening and being closed. To make these challenges (and by the way it sounds a little like Zaishen arenas?) could be a lot of work for A-Net and would inevitably the tests themselves would become criticised by people with differing opinions and, in time, become outdated.

It's an interesting idea but too flawed to work IMHO.

Lutae · Jan 21, 2008, 04:46 PM // 16:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torqual

I would PUG a lot more stuff if leavers were replaced by a hero with the same skillbar and stats.

For example, Wammo gets to 60% DP and /ragequits because of 'noob monk'. They are replaced in party window by 'Tyrian Warrior' .... you know, rather like when you have a copy of a hero in the party.

This is not hard to implement and it would counter a serious PUG-trust issue.

So true, especially for those monks that always seem to disconnect or go afk halfway through a mission. The problem was even worse back when there was no option to reconnect after being disconnected...

sterbenx2 · Jan 21, 2008, 04:47 PM // 16:47

Hard Mode should be an entirley different world. ie: When you enter Hard Mode, you character is swiched to a world instanced for fow ALL hard mode players. This way, the game will lump all Normal mode players into one world and all hard mode players into another. This, I believe, would make group finding in hard mode a bit easier.. or maybe more annoying as most towns would look like the asian servers.. lol. ppl should check it out, I hear crickets in LA and ascalon. =P its like GW 2015. Still think my "better training" ideas were best for PuGs.

MithranArkanere · Jan 21, 2008, 04:49 PM // 16:49

The only problem with that is that some people, specially in low-end areas, would 'give away' heroes. Some could even 'offer them' as services, taking a fee.
Join, leave, he stays with heroes and your clone (until zoning, of course).

So I would make that system work ONLY until after a certain time, like...
10 minutes for missions, and 30 minutes for explorable areas.

That way we prevent that.

Dograzor · Jan 21, 2008, 06:08 PM // 18:08

Yes, this seems to be a more valuable PvE point sytem... i think this idea could be greatly explored by Anet....

But please, keep in mind.... the points MUST BE based on social level.... NOT endless hours of grinding (with or without players) to get a maxed ranking.... If you want to implement these titles, please make something that will be a social experience...

Darksun · Jan 21, 2008, 08:28 PM // 20:28

This wouldn't solve anything. This is just another way of saying "Rank q10!!! 2million xp!" It will give the people in the pugs bigger heads.

You can't use a test to weed out ego. And its worse than stupidity..

Amy Awien · Jan 21, 2008, 08:42 PM // 20:42

Let's keep it simple.

A title track where the player can select their own title, ranging from "Noob" through "Team Player" and "Team Leader" to "I am the Team". Or something of that nature. That should tell you who to avoid.

Kwan Xi · Jan 21, 2008, 09:03 PM // 21:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

Let's keep it simple.

A title track where the player can select their own title, ranging from "Noob" through "Team Player" and "Team Leader" to "I am the Team". Or something of that nature. That should tell you who to avoid.

Yeah.... I'm a bad player and I want to join a PuG. I think I'd be smart enough to display another title other than "Noob."

tmr819 · Jan 21, 2008, 10:44 PM // 22:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marverick

PuG vs H/H has long been a controversy in GW since Nightfall. The reason people do not PuG is because many PuG'ers are generally narrow-minded, big-headed, and bad players, and most people do not want to risk having to group with these kinds of people.

Controversy? What controversy? It seems to me there are players contentedly playing GW primarily with their Heroes and henches with nary a complaint, and still more players happily playing either solo and/or with friends and fellow guildies, and other players who do PUG occasionally and are not having any major problems, and -- finally --- some players (the minority, I expect, though I have no hard data to support that) who want to group more often and are having a hard time finding decent groups -- PUGs, to be specific.

Your idea beats some of the ones I've read in that at least it isn't designed to force players to form player groups, I'll give you that.

But, see the second boldface section above... Is this really true? This is most definitely NOT the reason I avoid PUGs. The main reason I prefer not to PUG is because I prefer to play with people in my guild or alliance or, barring that, I actually like using henches or heroes. In other words, it is not that PUGs are bad but that Heroes and henches are better. I like trying my own skill combinations, my own hero/hench combinations, my own tactics and strategies, in my own timeframe.

I wouldn't care whether people passed the test you are proposing or not; I would still prefer not to PUG.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marverick

Instead of addressing this issue directly, ANet has been imposing all sorts of ridiculous, numerical limitations on the alternative to PuG's in an attempt to stop this deviation instead of treating the problem at its root.

Again, this is a "problem" for you; it is not a problem for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marverick

What I propose is to implement a sort of quest chain and possibly a mini-IQ test for one to prove one's proficiency and non-stupidity with. Upon completion of the quest[s], one will have an X sign next to his name in the party window, as well as the party search window, to inform other players that he is not a clueless, egotistical tard.

In order to prevent grind, the quest[s] should be short, completable in under 30-40 minutes, with a fully functional brain, and the player is given access to all skills for the duration of the quest[s].

Of course, one can still PuG without completing it; just that people looking to accomplish tasks may generally not join that person's group.

Suggestions? Ideas?

I think your idea is pretty off-the-wall, frankly. I see what you're getting at, but whatever bad experiences I've had in PUGs weren't due to "dumbness" or "inexperience" per se but to arrogance, immaturity, and controversy among players. Maybe this is just me, but I am far less bothered by wipes caused by mistakes and inexperience than I am by obnoxious, know-it-alls who treat other players with contempt and have hissy fits for the most petty of reasons.

There is no "test" that I know of that will weed out such players in any game, shy of choosing to go solo. Mhenlo et al. may not always play that well, but they NEVER criticize my build, tell me how to run a mission, ragequit, call me "noob", insist on going left when I think we should go right. They attack the target I call, retreat when I tell them (well, mostly

), etc., and on and on it goes.

Quote:

Something like this needs to be done. Either we get 7 heroes without any limitations (which won't be happening) or we get better PuG options to filter out the retards who ruin it for everyone else.

Your seven heroes idea is much better, imo. But I would only like them for the sheer "fun factor", not because I think seven heroes are necessary to solve a "problem".

As for me, as long as there are options, I always:

(1) Try to solo a mission/quest/dungeon first.
(2) If I fail, I try to solo it again. And again. And again.
(3) If I am still failing, I will scour wiki and guru for ideas and suggestions.
(4) Then I will try to solo it again. And again. And again.
(5) If I continue to fail and really do need help, I seek assistance from guildies/alliance/friends.
(6) If no guildies/alliance/friends are available, I'll wait till they are.
(7) After exhausting ALL of the above options, I will seek out a PUG.

Usually, I never have to go past steps 1 or 2 above.

A better way to "Make PUGS viable again" would be to create certain optional regions, missions, and dungeons that are reserved for player groups only. There are a few of these already in GW, a few more would not bother me -- I just wouldn't go anywhere near them.

Marverick · Jan 21, 2008, 11:19 PM // 23:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

Controversy? What controversy? It seems to me there are players contentedly playing GW primarily with their Heroes and henches with nary a complaint, and still more players happily playing either solo and/or with friends and fellow guildies, and other players who do PUG occasionally and are not having any major problems, and -- finally --- some players (the minority, I expect, though I have no hard data to support that) who want to group more often and are having a hard time finding decent groups -- PUGs, to be specific.

Read one of those 300-page threads here or on GWOnline concerning 7-heroes where people argue back and forth to no avail.

Quote:

But, see the second boldface section above... Is this really true? This is most definitely NOT the reason I avoid PUGs. The main reason I prefer not to PUG is because I prefer to play with people in my guild or alliance or, barring that, I actually like using henches or heroes. In other words, it is not that PUGs are bad but that Heroes and henches are better. I like trying my own skill combinations, my own hero/hench combinations, my own tactics and strategies, in my own timeframe.

I wouldn't care whether people passed the test you are proposing or not; I would still prefer not to PUG.

Again, this is a "problem" for you; it is not a problem for me.

I respect your opinion, I spend most of my time currently with H/H too; however, I don't like to deal with henchmen stupidity in some of the harder areas. Guildies/friends can't be online and willing to do whatever you want to do at all times. Since ANet is refusing us 7 heroes for their own dumb reasons, that leaves one last option.

Quote:

I think your idea is pretty off-the-wall, frankly. I see what you're getting at, but whatever bad experiences I've had in PUGs weren't due to "dumbness" or "inexperience" per se but to arrogance, immaturity, and controversy among players. Maybe this is just me, but I am far less bothered by wipes caused by mistakes and inexperience than I am by obnoxious, know-it-alls who treat other players with contempt and have hissy fits for the most petty of reasons.

I agree with this. But, I don't think there's a viable method to implement a maturity test.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torqual

I can see the logic in what you are suggesting, but you are treating matters of taste here as if they are matters of fact.

One of the attractive points about GW is that there are many different ways to counter threats.

If A-Net got involved in trying to promote the 'official' way to play the game, you'd find a bunch of people saying 'screw that, I did it better this way'.

About the closest they have come to this is beginner things like the 'Condition Chaining' quest in Shing Jea.

There are good and bad approaches to stuff (the example of Prot vs Healing being a good one) but that doesn't make it 'Right' and 'Wrong' to do things in a certain way.

GW is a constantly-changing environment with skill balances, loopholes and exploits that are constantly opening and being closed. To make these challenges (and by the way it sounds a little like Zaishen arenas?) could be a lot of work for A-Net and would inevitably the tests themselves would become criticised by people with differing opinions and, in time, become outdated.

It's an interesting idea but too flawed to work IMHO.

It's not about promoting, it's about informing. Most PuG'ers out there don't know how to do anything except tank, nuke, and heal. They won't do anything else until presented with a situation where their current methodology doesn't work, even if such a party takes 5 hours to complete a mission while another one takes only 1 (and thus, is obviously better).

tmr819 · Jan 21, 2008, 11:34 PM // 23:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marverick

I respect your opinion, I spend most of my time currently with H/H too; however, I don't like to deal with henchmen stupidity in some of the harder areas. Guildies/friends can't be online and willing to do whatever you want to do at all times. Since ANet is refusing us 7 heroes for their own dumb reasons, that leaves one last option.

Aren't harder areas by definition better with a PUG (than solo, that is)?

I know, for example, that the various sections of Slaver's Exile can be h/h'd but, frankly, I don't think most people play well enough to do this. I know I can't, so I don't even bother with Slaver's at all. In a certain sense, making a dungeon, quest, or region really difficult encourages more PUGs. The more PUGs there are, the higher the proportion of good PUGs there will be, right?

Slaver's is an example of what I was referring to when I said GW should reserve special areas for player groups only. I've attempted Slaver's a couple of times and got so completely stomped I gave up on it altogether. Given a choice between PUG-ing or skipping an optional dungeon or area I am not able to Hero/hench I'll usually just choose to skip it.

While technically speaking, Slavers can be hero/henched, practically speaking it would be better to PUG it, I would think. Maybe GW just needs more areas like this? What if, for example, Slaver's had been designed to allow no use of Heroes or henches? That would certainly increase the formation of PUGs.

Age · Jan 22, 2008, 12:28 AM // 00:28

The best way would to improve the drop rate if it can be done with real ppl.I am not sure if this can done.

Kaida the Heartless · Jan 22, 2008, 12:57 AM // 00:57

/not signed

What happens when the quests get wiki'd?

Marverick · Jan 22, 2008, 02:16 AM // 02:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Age

The best way would to improve the drop rate if it can be done with real ppl.I am not sure if this can done.

Exactly what does that accomplish? That and the bonus reputation thing suggested earlier. PuGs will still be filled with immature and bad players.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaida the Heartless

/not signed

What happens when the quests get wiki'd?

Wiki is made by the community. YOU and the rest of the community will have to refrain from putting it on wiki.

capblye · Jan 22, 2008, 02:46 AM // 02:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Yeah, seriously... ever wondered why Guild Wars is filled with immature idiots? No fee. Implement a fee = they're filtered out.

So only the idiots are poor? I think not.
I have pugged with the good, the bad and the pugly, and i can say from xp that i have seen some good teenage players that ran their char with precision timing and worked as a team. Maybe they cant afford a fee ... so they get the boot?

I have also pugged with adults who probly couldnt tie their shoelaces (thank heaven for velcro!) They can afford the fee, but theyre still bad players.

Point is, fees will NOT make GW better, nor will some title track or some IQ test/Solo mish.
This is the part where the GUILD in GUILD Wars comes in.

If you dont like to take the chance on a bad player/s in a PUG, then either solo or restrict yourself to Guild runs. Join a bigger PVE guild with a lot of active players and feel out who plays as you like.

To sum up ... a perfect example of why the OP's idea WON'T work is Driving.
People have to take a written test AND a practical exam. And yet ...
(Can ya guess where this is goin?)
THERE ARE STILL BAD DRIVERS!

Nuff said

Shadowlance. · Jan 22, 2008, 03:08 AM // 03:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by capblye

THERE ARE STILL BAD DRIVERS!

LOL - so true - nice analogy. Also if surveyed, 9 out of 10 people say they are above average drivers...

Guess that applies to PUGs too.

Duke.07 · Jan 22, 2008, 03:19 AM // 03:19

/unsigned

This would probably cause more problems than solve them. This idea would create ANOTHER reason to discriminate, people would never get picked up by groups if they didn't have the little indicator thing that showed they did this quest and egomaniacal smart people would just have their ego inflated further, and we would be back at point A.

Oh, and I probably wouldn't pass these tests, and I don't want a game that I payed $50 for to tell me I'm stupid. =P

Kaida the Heartless · Jan 22, 2008, 09:04 AM // 09:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marverick

Wiki is made by the community. YOU and the rest of the community will have to refrain from putting it on wiki.

It only takes 1 person.