Curse

Jetdoc · Sep 25, 2007, 08:17 PM // 20:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

However this option is limited. Compared to someone who plays in a pug they are at a disadvantage. They have to take 4 set builds. Which until GW:EN are useless and even in GW:EN arent great. A few exceptions of course but its more the fact they dont work everywhere. With heroes you can change them to face the comming area. A henchmen is stuck running the same build even in an area where it may be much less effective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draikin

IWhat Anet doesn't consider, in my opinion, is that those people in between the two camps don't join PuGs because they are better than H/H, they have different reasons for doing so. It's not like we're in a situation where H/H teams are not as good as PuGs and full hero parties are way better. PuGs are already inferior to H/H teams to begin with.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Despite what Draikin posted above, many people DO believe that PuGs have advantages (and are possibly superior) to H/H using the current system. And it is those players (especially those that have issues with henchmen and their limitations that would rather PuG than use them) that WOULD be impacted by a switch to seven heroes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by You can't see me

Over powered parties? They are not in the least bit more powerful than a full group, in fact, they underpower it greatly.

Guild/Friend/Alliance Group > Seven Heros > Most PuGs.

That's the bottem line for gameplay.

Taking PuGs away permanantly would not damage this line. And that's not even the case in question.

Bottem line:

No reason that seven heros should not be available for you to use.

I'd like to hear you reconcile these two thoughts. So, PuGs are more powerful than seven heroes, yet seven heroes are better than PuGs? Whut?

I would believe that a large majority of the population would be upset if A-Net took away the ability to PuG. I believe that is why A-Net tried to improve the party/trading screen to make it easier to group with random people.

Talking in absolutes (e.g. "there ain't be no reason to not give me my dang 7 heroes, so shutz up") is never a good position to take in having a rational conversation about an issue that A-Net has voiced their opinion on.

You can't see me · Sep 25, 2007, 08:39 PM // 20:39

Reading comprehention classes FTW...

I'll put this in other words.

I never said PuG's are better then heros in most cases. In fact, I never even refered to an actual PuG in the first staement you quote. I simply said heros do not have the ability to think, unlike humans. PuG's are inferior to heros in most cases because of the skill level of the players. Heros are superior because they do not lack skill, only judgement, which most people don't use anyway. Therefore, Seven heros are niether beter or worse than PuGs depending on luck of the draw. It would just take that luck away and allow you to find a "Good Group" this being your heros, faster.

Either way, a skilled group of friends, such a guild group, will always do better because they have the ability to think.

And I made the comparison with PuGs that they are not a very social aspect of the game, which people make them out to be, so taking them out would not do much to the social end. I said nothing about Guild groups and such, nor do I say that's the actual case, as in the quote "This is not even the case in question"

I never said people would not be upset, I only said, people that think that PuGs are a huge social aspect would be upset for a horrid and wrong reason.

And many arguments in American Congress that are well put end in Absolutes. Besides, it drives people to counter an absolute more than an argument. God forbid I want to debate with someone who puts half their behind into it. Abolutes make people mad sometimes, and therefore drive them more in their replies. Basic Psychology.

And yes, I came here to debate. Not to point something out and leave.

Jetdoc · Sep 25, 2007, 09:15 PM // 21:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by You can't see me

Reading comprehention classes FTW...

This is so ironic I won't even bother to comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by You can't see me

Besides, it drives people to counter an absolute more than an argument. God forbid I want to debate with someone who puts half their behind into it. Abolutes make people mad sometimes, and therefore drive them more in their replies.

Rational arguments, by their nature, forces both parties to understand and acknowledge the other points of view brought into the debate. Debating from a stand of absolutes is one of the poorest forms of debate one can have. Citing the United States Congress and the relative lack of progress they've made on key national issues is a bit ironic, especially since many of the "absolute" arguments posed there are cited as "rhetoric that gets nowhere."

But back to the point at hand...

Quote:

Originally Posted by You can't see me

Either way, a skilled group of friends, such a guild group, will always do better because they have the ability to think.

So, in your view, the multiplayer aspect of the game should be isolated to playing with either guildmates or friends, and not based on the random PuG encounter? If that is the case, then if you simply don't know that many people in game, you're basically S.O.L. if you want to play with someone else? Ouch, that's a pretty harsh view.

In short, the "seven heroes would be overpowered" argument, in my opinion, isn't based on whether someone could simply put seven heroes in his party, walk away from the computer, and have the computer "autokill" everything on the screen. It's about whether, when presented with the choice between the seven hero party and a PuG party, the overwhelming, more powerful choice would be to take the seven heroes.

That, in and of itself, could have a dramatic impact on the availability of PuGs in the future. If I'm "comprehenting" your post right, is it your position that you really don't care what happens to PuGs (and that no one should)?

Bryant Again · Sep 25, 2007, 09:27 PM // 21:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_jos

Now I have these things called guild, alliance and friends list.
With those, I know who are the decent players and who are not.
Revolutionary? Nah.....

Guilds =/= PUGs, which is what adding 7 heroes is mostly concerning. Guilds are fine.

This too got lost in the rubble:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

(2) why "people that would PuG will always be able to PuG". Explain why you do not believe why more areas will become like Unwaking Waters and Eternal Grove where getting an all-human party together is currently almost relatively impossible.

Interesting. I was under the assumption that Unwaking Waters and Eternal Grove were problems because people were rarely there. This is an instance where having 7 heroes would actually be a good idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beanerman_99

I am not here to argue for or against more heroes. I just saying to those who are saying "you should be PuGing more" that this is no longer a viable, reasonable, easy thing to do. There are just simply too many different things going on with each person.

This is QFT.

Jetdoc · Sep 25, 2007, 09:32 PM // 21:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Interesting. I was under the assumption that Unwaking Waters and Eternal Grove were problems because people were rarely there. This is an instance where having 7 heroes would actually be a good idea.

My point is that the introduction of 7 heroes has the potential to create more "ghost towns" like those two mission areas.

For example, I can easily see missions such as Tahannkai (sp?) Temple, Gyala Hatchery, Jennur's Horde, etc. becoming relatively void of PuGs (like Unwaking Waters/Eternal Grove are today).

Bryant Again · Sep 25, 2007, 10:07 PM // 22:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

My point is that the introduction of 7 heroes has the potential to create more "ghost towns" like those two mission areas.

For example, I can easily see missions such as Tahannkai (sp?) Temple, Gyala Hatchery, Jennur's Horde, etc. becoming relatively void of PuGs (like Unwaking Waters/Eternal Grove are today).

Then it wouldn't hurt to be more specific. Unwaking Waters and Eternal Grove - among many others - are best known for being devoid of people, even before NF was released. That's a big reason why Heroes were developed in the first place.

Isileth · Sep 25, 2007, 10:16 PM // 22:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Despite what Draikin posted above, many people DO believe that PuGs have advantages (and are possibly superior) to H/H using the current system. And it is those players (especially those that have issues with henchmen and their limitations that would rather PuG than use them) that WOULD be impacted by a switch to seven heroes.

So these people that are in the middle, these people that if given the option of 7 heroes would want it, shouldnt have it...because they want it?
They are at a point where heroes would suit them more, would make playing easier (not in terms of skill required but again for the reasons stated before. Time, multiple afk etc).

As it stands your saying people should be made to pug because the people who like to pug need to have others to pug with.
These people will always be able to pug. Yes having 7 heroes will take away some from that "middle camp" but everyone that wants to pug still can. Everyone that doesnt can go ahead and do that as well.

There will always be people to pug with. In the areas that no one really visits anymore anyway (Where you wouldnt have gotten a team without a guild/alliance) people wont have to wait or visit forums to try and arrange a team. You can just go ahead and do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by You can't see me

Guild/Friend/Alliance Group > Seven Heros > Most PuGs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

I'd like to hear you reconcile these two thoughts. So, PuGs are more powerful than seven heroes, yet seven heroes are better than PuGs? Whut?

A guild/friend/alliance group isnt a pug

When it comes down to it this change will have a minor negative effect on some players. They will still be able to play the game how they want however. Nothing will stop them from pugging.

It also gives a major positive to a huge ammount of players. Casual players far outnumber anyone else. They will now be able to play the game how they want, without being punished for that choice. They will also be able to possibly do parts of the game they couldnt otherwise do.

So the "puggers" loose some people to pug with. The casual player gains the ability to play the way they want and access to new areas (due to time/afk reasons they can walk away and when they come back no one has left).

To me that seems like a very good trade off.

bwillcox · Sep 25, 2007, 10:17 PM // 22:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

My point is that the introduction of 7 heroes has the potential to create more "ghost towns" like those two mission areas.

For example, I can easily see missions such as Tahannkai (sp?) Temple, Gyala Hatchery, Jennur's Horde, etc. becoming relatively void of PuGs (like Unwaking Waters/Eternal Grove are today).

For me personally, I place no value in PuGs. In fact, I get annoyed when I enter a town or outpost and someone invites me to join w/o any communications. I have no desire to argue any of this as I see it as a purely subjective point. It all depends on how you like to play the game.

Bryant Again · Sep 25, 2007, 10:19 PM // 22:19

Isileth - very good posts and points. I think the whole PUG dilemma that GW1 is going through right now could be a very big reason why GW2 will have the option of playing solo or with people.

Jetdoc · Sep 25, 2007, 10:29 PM // 22:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

As it stands your saying people should be made to pug because the people who like to pug need to have others to pug with.
These people will always be able to pug. Yes having 7 heroes will take away some from that "middle camp" but everyone that wants to pug still can. Everyone that doesnt can go ahead and do that as well.

There will always be people to pug with. In the areas that no one really visits anymore anyway (Where you wouldnt have gotten a team without a guild/alliance) people wont have to wait or visit forums to try and arrange a team. You can just go ahead and do it.

This is where the PuG argument hits home. There are currently very limited places in the game where it is very, very difficult to find a PuG. As you state above, in those instances, players are basically FORCED (like how I twisted that classical argument around?

) to play with AI because of a lack of other players there.

So, "players that want to PuG" currently are unable to do so in those areas.

The introduction of seven heroes, as you acknowledge above, will likely remove more players from the multiplayer landscape, which will exacerbate that problem. As I state above, there are many MISSION towns that are borderline ghost towns right now. My concern is that the introduction of seven heroes will push those towns "over the edge", and then start to spread to other towns where it is difficult, but not insanely hard, to get a PuG together.

So, again, "players that want to PuG still can" is now becoming more and more a platitude than a reality. How can accelerating the number of towns that are devoid of human players be a good thing for GW, which advertises the CHOICE of playing either solo or multiplayer? Or should it begin advertising "you can play multiplayer ONLY in certain areas of the game?"

Vinraith · Sep 25, 2007, 10:41 PM // 22:41

Quote:

The introduction of seven heroes, as you acknowledge above, will likely remove more players from the multiplayer landscape, which will exacerbate that problem. As I state above, there are many MISSION towns that are borderline ghost towns right now. My concern is that the introduction of seven heroes will push those towns "over the edge", and then start to spread to other towns where it is difficult, but not insanely hard, to get a PuG together.

So your complaint, in essence, is that 7 heroes will give people the option not to play PUG, thus making it harder for those of you that do want to PUG. In other words, your ability to play the game the way you want to is more important than their ability to play the game the way they want to.

This is why I don't PUG, I refuse to play with people that think their enjoyment of the game is more important than mine. I play with friends and I H/H. Anet can make the latter more enjoyable for me, and allow me access to the whole game, by allowing 7 heroes. Failing that, I'll make do with what I've got, and when GW2 rolls down the line I'll remember that Anet thought forcing me to play well with others was more important than giving me access to the whole game I paid for.

Isileth · Sep 25, 2007, 10:48 PM // 22:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

So, again, "players that want to PuG still can" is now becoming more and more a platitude than a reality. How can accelerating the number of towns that are devoid of human players be a good thing for GW, which advertises the CHOICE of playing either solo or multiplayer? Or should it begin advertising "you can play multiplayer ONLY in certain areas of the game?"

And that is the key point.

If there are not enough to pug does that not suggest that people would rather play solo in those areas?

From what I can tell by your post you are saying because some people want to play in a team, those that dont should be made to. Its a choice, and it seems people are chosing to play solo. As I said the casual player far outnumbers anyone else, so it isnt all that suprising that a feature that helps the casual player to be able to play is the one being picked the most.

And now to do that fun little twist the argument thing myself

Should it be advertised "You can play solo or multiplayer, but we would prefer you to team. So much so we have added the incentive of making the solo option weaker."

The options are there, as I said Anet have allowed the casual player to do a whole lot more than most other games, however they arent at all balanced.

And in reply to you being forced into using AI due to lack of players. Would you rather there wasnt any AI? Then you wouldnt be able to do it at all!
No one is forcing you to go with them. There just arent enough people there. This would be the same even without h/h. There are some areas that people dont visit all that often, often they are off the beaten track or only have 1-2 missions in the area. You cant expect a team waiting for you at every stop.

That is why the henchmen/heroes are so handy to the non casual player. At some point there will be an area you cant do with a full pug (unless you wait for a long time or arrange it beforehand).

Vinraith · Sep 25, 2007, 10:53 PM // 22:53

Quote:

From what I can tell by your post you are saying because some people want to play in a team, those that dont should be made to.

That's what all of the opposition crowd is saying, and always has been saying. Their excuse is "it's a multiplayer game," despite the fact that if it had been advertised as a game where you could ONLY play by teaming with other people most of the folks they're trying to force to play with them would never have bought the game in the first place.

Take henchmen and heroes out of the game and watch how many people are left to PUG with. The game would be a ghost town overnight.

geekling · Sep 25, 2007, 10:59 PM // 22:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

Or should it begin advertising "you can play multiplayer ONLY in certain areas of the game?"

PuGs are not the be all and end all of multiplayer play.
The option of playing with other people are still there. It is still a multiplayer game if you want it to be. 7 heroes would not change that. It is up to you to be adult enough to work out how find people to play with. ie. If there's no PuGs forming, put that friends list, guild and alliance chat to use.
Not wait for mommy Anet to set up a playdate for you with some kids that frankly don't want to share your sandbox because you really do smell.

Really, as someone who enjoys pugging when I have the time to do it. The last thing I want is people in a PuG who'd rather not play that game. People that are 'forced' into having to join up with a group of strangers for whatever reason.

Draikin · Sep 25, 2007, 11:10 PM // 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

The introduction of seven heroes, as you acknowledge above, will likely remove more players from the multiplayer landscape, which will exacerbate that problem. As I state above, there are many MISSION towns that are borderline ghost towns right now. My concern is that the introduction of seven heroes will push those towns "over the edge", and then start to spread to other towns where it is difficult, but not insanely hard, to get a PuG together.

Have you considered that exactly the opposite may happen? For example there would be a lot of people using full hero parties to complete DoA (which is currently almost deserted, the only groups there are the ones duo farming), which would actually result in more people being there. Eventually there would also be people that decide to form a PuG instead of going with seven heroes, which would mean other people that only PuG might have a chance at finding a team again.

Coraline Jones · Sep 25, 2007, 11:33 PM // 23:33

What shirosae wrote (on page 7) is probably one of the most true statements about the Guild Wars game.

As shirosae wrote, Guild Wars is really bad at filtering out players. For explorable areas, three max level heroes running some kind of half-decent build combined with a balanced team of henchmen is enough to get through just about every explorable area and a large number of missions (or dungeons). In fact, with very few exceptions, you can actually have 7 H/H practically do all the work and you could run all kinds of really stupid builds and never realize that you're not helping the team much. Party wipes or other mishaps could be explained to external factors like "dumb hero/hench A.I." (which it is pretty dumb sometimes). As a result, players simply don't get better, because they never even know that they are playing wrong.

Take it from me. I've seen even ultra-bad builds even in Dzagonur Bastion in Hard Mode, where you have to run a great team and great builds to get Masters.

In some ways, I can see why people say that heroes/henchmen have killed PUGs, and ANet is absolutely in this camp and they will never change it for GW1 no matter how many people beg and plead. We can only hope that GW2 will fix the problem.

Conversely, I could argue that having seven heroes or not, many players are not really improving their play regardless.

Some of the problem is just the game engine itself. The game basically has monsters auto-aggro on the perceived-weakest player in the team. The computer automatically knows who has DP, who has low armor, and who's got the smallest amount of health, and then it automatically goes after that player. I'd say a large number of players in the game will probably use NPCs to explore or do simple quests, because nobody has time to stand around town and spam "LFG", and many times your guildies are just as busy as you are. As a result, players get used to the idea that H/H just huddle around you and aggro is thrown all over the team. Also, H/H often automatically focus fire and follow your lead if you change targets in mid-battle, and they follow you around without being told.

End result? Once players start working in a human team, they continue playing as they always have. Monsters just wail on anybody and everybody in the party, nobody needs to call any targets, and you can run off in some crazy direction and expect the rest of the party to keep up. While Mhenlo will never rage quit if he starts tanking all day, human monks will not tolerate a prolonged game with a lack of protection.

Another big problem is that Guild Wars takes a crazy amount of time if you want to accomplish something significant. Most console games are broken down into roughly 15 to 20 minute segments and they throw in a save point at those intervals. It prevents gamer fatigue and that's really important. But if you're visiting a Guild Wars dungeon for the first time, it will probably take you at least an hour to complete with no breaks and (of course) no save points. I'm talking about the "casual" gamer, and not the guys that brag about killing Duncan The Black in 7 minutes flat. If you want to take a break, then forget about bring random human players. So in some ways, GW itself practically encourages NPCs.

Crom The Pale · Sep 26, 2007, 03:27 AM // 03:27

What it boils down to is people that pug would not sudenly decide that 7 heros are better, they are not. 7 hero is an option that would help out those that do not log on in active times or who have time constraints or playstyles that does not match other players.

How often have you joined a pug to have the very first thing they said to you be 'Ping your build'?

If I wish to take the time to put together a pug team to take on a mission or quest or dungeon I will always have that option. What we would like is the option to use 7 heros as well. Yes hench have improved, but that doesnt mean every possible skill bar in the hench will mesh with the party build I want to run in a certain area.

If you go to unwaking waters now and nobody is there, how will that change once you have 7 heros? Is it that when you get there instead of sitting around and waiting for 30-60 min you just put together your Heros and go? Well yes but then what do you do now? You put together your heros/hench and go. If you were going to wait before your going to wait regardless of how many heros are availible.

The big differance is with 7 heros you stand a much better chance of completing the mission. And as has been stated before forcing people to set an entire partys skill bars will teach them more about how to play the game.

Seeing what a total party build is, then realizing how much better it would run if live people were running those builds you set on your Heros just might lead some people back to pugs. As it is now they need a monk they grab a hench, no thought to what monk build or how it works, ele, grab the earth/fire and go. Do they think about how many hitpoints? What skills the ele has that might help there party or work well with the tanks build? NO.

Though I have to agree the argument is pointless, Anet will not impliment this except as a last resort after GW2 is released.

the_jos · Sep 26, 2007, 11:30 AM // 11:30

I have a good RL friend that plays GW from time to time.
She has better social skills than the average PuG member, but has about the same playing style and skills as the average PuG member.
She has a busy schedule and has to AFK from time to time because of her kids, so she is the ideal occassional PuG player that plays H&H most of the time. Things like GWG, GWO and wiki are unknown to her.

Now, I give her 7 heroes instead of the 3 she has now.

Will the builds get better? Probably not.
The majority of the game is easy to beat, even with so/so skilled hero builds.
Just looking at some of her hero builds made me cry. Still she completed Proph. and a large part of NF so far. EotN is also beaten slowly.

Will her gameplay improve? Probably not.
It will still be based on H&H tactics, which are very different from full-party gameplay.

Arguing that 7 heroes would make her a better player is wishfull thinking.
So the 7 heroes would most likely benefit the more advanced players and not the average.

One thing that would make my friend a better player is playing with other humans and learning how individual and team builds work.
Learn how to play in a human team.
There are two ways of doing that:
* PuG
* Guild

But how to find a decent guild when you don't visit forums?
Join the random ones adverticed in outposts?
Have luck with someone on your friends list?
How did people on your friends list get there in the first place?

While I am not opposed to 7 heroes in general I still have not seen a real need (not nice to have) compared to H&H, except for a few missions/areas.
Sure, it would make the game easier, but it's not (almost) impossible now (except a few places).
Identifying those spots and ask for a solution might be a solution there might be the better option compared to asking for the generic 7 heroes which A-net is not willing to give.
Convince them there is a NEED and not a WANT and they might change their mind (or fix a particular area/mission).

shirosae · Sep 26, 2007, 01:22 PM // 13:22

I've had a couple more thoughts about all of this.

The problem, as i see it, is that Heros are actually kinda bad in all ways other than multi-targetting and reaction speed, but that the average player is even worse. If true, that means that 7H isn't actually the problem. The problem is that the skill levels are so low for so many people.

It seems to me that the '7H = no more PUG' problem goes away if you stop people from sucking so bad, and PUGs naturally become better than 7H. I have an idea:

Disclaimer: This idea is ridiculously far fetched and won't be introduced into GW because it's such a huge amount of effort for no financial gain on the part of Anet. Any similarities to persons live or dead is purely co-incidental and no correspondan

Remember the profession training stuff from the Monastery in Factions?

Imagine that you enter mission outpost #1. There's an enter mission NPC/button, but there's also a training mission.

This training mission can be done only with 7 Heroes. During this mission, you are given a goal. Maybe this goal is specific to your profession (pull the groups individually with a bow, Warrior. Daze the Healers, Ranger). Maybe it's that you're given a screen detailing the builds you're going to come up against, and need to create a team build which actually includes stuff like Enchantment removal.

If you pass these training missions, you're given a displayable award for each. Maybe these take the form of a title track that you can display when looking for group.

People looking for a Monk can look for one with a title that translates to "I can pre-prot players and don't use rebirth". Maybe they can look for a Ranger that has "I know i don't use a Bow for DPS unless i'm spreading degen, also d-shot > all".

The advantage of this kind of system is that people are not excluded from obtaining those titles (because they're essentially solo tests of skill/understanding). They also give people looking for players the ability to decide whether they want to take only experienced players, or risk it on an unranked.

Also, obtaining these titles wouldn't be some ridiculous grind. You do a mission, and if you understand the purpose of the exercise, that's it. One success and you're done, unless you suck and refuse to learn and fail over and over. Of course, if you do suck and refuse to learn, you can still do the regular storyline missions if people/guildies/whoever will take you or if you want to use 7H.

In addition, this offers an advantage to not sucking and doing the training missions: you get groups faster.

Balancing those missions would be a nightmare though. You'd need to weight the tasks to heavily require the role you were supposed to be performing. They'd also need to be difficult enough to require skill, and not a trip to PvX Wiki.

Also, you'd need to be careful that you didn't get people in the first mission outpost doing nonsense like "LFG LEVEL 20 'I DONT SUCK' TITLE TRACK ONLY". Maybe you could cap the displayable training rank based on outpost unless you were in Hard Mode or something, so everyone in the first mission outpost where the first training mission is can only display rank 1 training.

I can almost see it being a little like the Bison tournament. You go into an outpost, pass the mission, and instead of gaining a silly hat, you get a displayable note that states you passed. Of course, it wouldn't be the Bison tournament, but that's a different issue.

It'd need to be thought through carefully, but the point is this: Introduce ways for people to learn how not to suck in the game itself. Make it so that people can not suck without going to all sorts of external locations.

As soon as the level of player skill in the game rises, or people can determine who has skill and who doesn't, PUGs are safe regardless of what you do to heros, because a good human player is almost five billion times better than a hero and always will be.

Isileth · Sep 26, 2007, 01:50 PM // 13:50

For me, the problem isnt the skill level of pugs.

As I have said before its the time issues, multiple afk etc.

Improving the level of skill in pugs (Which for fairly obvious reasons wouldnt actually work anyway) wouldnt solve any of those problems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_jos

Convince them there is a NEED and not a WANT and they might change their mind (or fix a particular area/mission).

Is it not a need that a casual player is unable to access high end areas because they dont have the time?
Is it not a need that the casual player is forced into a weaker team because they dont have time to find a pug?
Is it not a need that someone who has to go afk often has to join a weaker team?
Is it not a need that someone has to join a weaker team because very few pugs will accept their class?

And also in reply to that 7 in HM only suggestions.

I disagree with that as well

Still doesnt solve the issues of the casual player in NM.