Curse

Winterclaw · Aug 28, 2007, 02:12 AM // 02:12

Despite my dislike of some parts of the game, I thought of something from madden that might improve people's willingness to PUG. First a background for people who haven't played the game. In '08 there is a feature of the game called superstar mode. What you do is create a player and play through his career. What's interesting about this mode is that everything you do in a game adds to or subtracts from your preformance rating for that game. Let's say your QB throws a 20 yard pass for a TD, that's 10-15 points. Let's say he throws a INT that is run back for a TD, that's a 20 point penalty. Funny thing is, it is completely automatic. So after the game is over, your total rating for the game will improve or hurt your overall career rating.

Now let's think about PUGs. The most common reason why people who don't use them much is it's too hard to find a good person to PUG with outside of a friend or guildie. Now if there was some abilty to tell just how well a player does in a PUG while you are looking for one, it might make someone more willing to join up. For example if you were going into HA and the person you see win it from time to time is LFG you'd be more likely to pick him because he's a good HAer.

So why not take that Madden feature and apply it to GW? A title that keeps a track of everything you do while in a PUG and gives you points or takes them away based on what you do. Vanq an area without anyone dying? There's a bonus. Have a party wipe/mission over? There's a penalty. Save the party from a wipe/mission over (meaning surviving and ressing someone who can res the group if you have a res sig)? There's some points for you. Rage quit? Lose some points. Two mobs clustered together and you pull one? Points for you. Pull both or not pay attention to the radar as another patrol comes in? Lose points. Using a skill at the right time? Points for. Using a skill at the wrong time? Points against. PUG your way to Legendary Survivor? Huge amount of points for. That sort of thing.

The idea is let people have a method of displaying how well they do in groups so you know if a person can be PUGed with or not. If he has a good rating overall, he'll have a good rating. If he stinks, plays leeroy, and RQs he's going to have a bad rating. Most importantly it won't be too based on other players' actions and responces (unless as a group you are making disasterous mistakes) so it'd be at least a semifair system to implement.

I also think that this system should be at least partly character based and here's why: let's say that someone is a great person in a PUG in general but a poor monk in PvE. Someone who's good but not playing in his strong suit would be able to get into teams who were expecting more if it's solely account based. However he might be better than some other person who's a worse player in general and at the same skill level at least monk wise. Why? Because he knows at least how to play as a team. On the other side, let's say that someone is a great monk in both PvP and PvE but stinks at the other 3 classes he plays, he needs some way to let others know that's he's trustable at least in that role. So IMO this title needs to be account based to show your general skill, and it needs to have a character component so people know if you happen to be good or bad with this class.

Thoughts?

dm877 · Aug 28, 2007, 02:37 AM // 02:37

horrible idea.

i suck at GW, i get 60% dp all the time so if GW decides to use your idea, i will be playing by myself all day.

Winterclaw · Aug 28, 2007, 02:40 AM // 02:40

Do you get 60% DP often when playing with other players?

The title progress shouldn't be changed if you are H/H or in PvP.

Enko · Aug 28, 2007, 02:56 AM // 02:56

seems like it would just encourage griefing. there's always going to be someone on a team who's going to agro everything to bring down others.

HawkofStorms · Aug 28, 2007, 03:04 AM // 03:04

So, some guy who pugs in say... Ascalon, would have a better score then my pug that works in HM RoT? I mean, there would/could be a point system for different areas, but it would just be too hard to come up with a valid point system.

Plus, it wouldn't be comprehensive. I mean, if I take a break from GW and then they implement this system, when I come back I'll be rejected from every group, even though I have 2000+ hours of experience. Its just another "show R9 or get kicked noob" thing.
/notsigned

The Lurch · Aug 28, 2007, 03:44 AM // 03:44

Quote:

Its just another "show R9 or get kicked noob" thing.

I remember when you couldn't ping your skills, and couldn't show titles. In pvp it was "Got any experiance? No? Run these skills. Ok lets go" and it was fun. Now I cannot ever get into pvp because its so high end.

Its hard enough getting into PUG's as an assassin (even though im really really good at it) so i dont need anything else that will deter me from getting into PUG's

/notsignedtothepowerof10

Winterclaw · Aug 28, 2007, 03:47 AM // 03:47

Enko, the guy who greifs would take the hardest hit. Another way to cancel that out is if you have too big a negitive modifier, then you wouldn't be able to hurt the group so much.

Hawk, true enough, but at least there'd be some system in place to make it easier to pug. It doesn't have to have 15 ranks either... it could be -1, 0, and +1 for instance. The goal of the idea isn't to promote elitism or max a title, it's just to give a quick means of showing how good this particular person is in a PUG. Thus the scoring system could be simplified accordingly. Plus if you have friends you regularly group with, they could help you out some by just going about your regular course of action.

Shriketalon · Aug 28, 2007, 04:15 AM // 04:15

How on earth would this be programmed? It seems fine in theory, but there are so many details in the process that make it extremely complicated. A sports game is far more simple, as it has a single goal and very limited number of methods. With the number of objectives and skills in Guild Wars, this idea simply isn't feasible. To use some of your examples:

Quote: