Curse

Jetdoc · Jan 10, 2007, 10:11 PM // 22:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

The situation of people not being given the "choice" to multiplayer because there aren't enough other people to form PuGs doesn't constitute a good argument for forcing other people to multiplayer.

If you honestly can't find people to PuG with, it should indicate something profound to you: you and your opinions are such a minority that you can't even put together 4, 6, or 8 other people that share your ideas.

Burst - I've heard this argument many, many times, and I want to clarify...

This is NOT about forcing people to PuG. When Prophecies came out, the option was there to play the game solo with henchmen, and many players did because they simply wanted to play in a single player environment.

However, these players were clearly a minority of GW players, as completing the game with henchmen was pretty difficult. As a result, many of the players that were relatively indifferent to PuGing or henching chose to PuG. They were not FORCED to PuG - they chose to do so when evaluating the options.

Now, Nightfall comes out. Those same players that were relatively indifferent to PuGing or hero/henching are faced with the same decision. And resoundingly, a large majority of them are utilizing heroes/henchmen.

So what does that tell you? In Prophecies, the focus was on multiplayer PvE, with the option of completing the story in single player mode.

In Nightfall, now the focus of the game is increasingly becoming a single player PvE game, with the potential option of completing it in multiplayer mode.

In either case, you have the choice as to which option you choose. It is those that are indifferent - who generally choose based on a cost-benefit analysis - that now are playing in single player mode, simply for the fact that A-Net has made it much easier to complete the campaigns with hero/henchmen.

That's the fallacy in your post that quoted above - it's absoultely true that a minority of the players want to PuG, but it's also a minority of the players that absolutely abhor PuGs and avoid them at any cost. The vast majority inbetween - those that are indifferent - are those that threads like this are geared towards.

ryanryanryan0310 · Jan 10, 2007, 10:30 PM // 22:30

I love pug groups, it makes the game more intersting. I dislike playing with henchies and hero's, it's freaking boring. Example: You just killed a boss and one party member capps and leave's and then 1 rage quit's. It's fun trying to beat the missions with a handicapp. With hero's and henchies it's all too robotic, there's no excitement.

Erik Fox · Jan 10, 2007, 10:38 PM // 22:38

I think a reason that hasn't been mentioned yet is the introduction of Master's timed missions. People always said they PUGed through Prophecies just fine, but once they hit Factions they could never get a good group. I think that part of the reason for this is that because of the timed missions, people need to be able to keep moving through and mission - a very steep learning curve. Due to that Many people got this elitist attitude about WHO was in their group and WTF KICK THE _____ WE CANT GET MASTERS WITH HIM because they don't kill fast enough/die too much/whatever. I've had missions where I'm the second or third in a PUG, the eighth member comes in and someone decides we need two monks. That eighth member decides 'kick the necro' because My class isn't 'good enough' to get master's. I know this happens with other professions as well. I feel that with timed missions, the pressure is on and that is a contributing factor to the decline of good PUGs.

Loviatar · Jan 10, 2007, 10:40 PM // 22:40

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

Burst - I've heard this argument many, many times, and I want to clarify...

This is NOT about forcing people to PuG. When Prophecies came out, the option was there to play the game solo with henchmen, and many players did because they simply wanted to play in a single player environment.

However, these players were clearly a minority of GW players, as completing the game with henchmen was pretty difficult. As a result, many of the players that were relatively indifferent to PuGing or henching chose to PuG. They were not FORCED to PuG - they chose to do so when evaluating the options.[/QUOTE]

hi jet

they were forced to pug because it was not simply *pretty difficult* it was almost impossible.

remember way back when that the first person who managed to hench a later mission posted screenshots to prove they did the impossible?

my question to you is simply this and please give it a bit of thought.

if hero quality henchmen had been available from the very start dont you think that what is happening now with Nightfall wouldnt have started from day one?

Jetdoc · Jan 10, 2007, 11:02 PM // 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

hi jet

my question to you is simply this and please give it a bit of thought.

if hero quality henchmen had been available from the very start dont you think that what is happening now with Nightfall wouldnt have started from day one?

Hello Loviatar! I personally love rationale discussions - it truly adds value to this forum and to those that are truly concerned about aspects of the game, even if we all don't agree.

To answer your question, I think that Guild Wars would be a completely different game. If heroes were introduced in Prophecies from the onset, I believe that most players would have simply viewed Guild Wars as a single-player PvE game.

What would that mean? PuG's, participating in missions with Guilds and people on your Friends lists, etc....they would be even rarer than they are today. Why? There are many people that began their mutliplayer PvE experience with Guild Wars. If they had no incentive as to even trying the multiplayer experience, they would simply have viewed Guild Wars as a single-player game with a multi-player PvP aspect.

To draw a parallel - think about how much time the hardcore PvE player plays in PvP. IMO, that would be very similar to how much time a single PvE player would have played in a PuG or any other multiplayer PvE group.

THAT is exactly what my concern is about the direction that Guild Wars is heading. The game is gravitating more and more towards a single player PvE experience. There are many that continue to play in the multiplayer PvE arena simply because they remember their positive multiplayer PvE experiences from Prophecies and, to a lesser extent, Factions. But, with the advantages that heroes/henchmen provide, you are seeing more and more of those former multiplayer PvErs choosing to move to the single player mode (some of which you can find examples for on this thread).

Ulivious The Reaper · Jan 10, 2007, 11:09 PM // 23:09

its because everyone is tired of america not having favor so they all hopped over to european severs.. atleast thats what i think has happend since when america has favor ToA only has 2-3 districts when not 2 months ago it'd have 8+ with first 3 full

also heros a great bonus.. i've yet to lose a misison while using heros... but PuGs are fun because its stepping into the unknown

Burst Cancel · Jan 10, 2007, 11:23 PM // 23:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

This is NOT about forcing people to PuG. When Prophecies came out, the option was there to play the game solo with henchmen, and many players did because they simply wanted to play in a single player environment.

However, these players were clearly a minority of GW players, as completing the game with henchmen was pretty difficult. As a result, many of the players that were relatively indifferent to PuGing or henching chose to PuG. They were not FORCED to PuG - they chose to do so when evaluating the options.

Now, Nightfall comes out. Those same players that were relatively indifferent to PuGing or hero/henching are faced with the same decision. And resoundingly, a large majority of them are utilizing heroes/henchmen.

So what does that tell you? In Prophecies, the focus was on multiplayer PvE, with the option of completing the story in single player mode.

In Nightfall, now the focus of the game is increasingly becoming a single player PvE game, with the potential option of completing it in multiplayer mode.

In either case, you have the choice as to which option you choose. It is those that are indifferent - who generally choose based on a cost-benefit analysis - that now are playing in single player mode, simply for the fact that A-Net has made it much easier to complete the campaigns with hero/henchmen.

That's the fallacy in your post that quoted above - it's absoultely true that a minority of the players want to PuG, but it's also a minority of the players that absolutely abhor PuGs and avoid them at any cost. The vast majority inbetween - those that are indifferent - are those that threads like this are geared towards.

Neither of us has enough information to make claims like this with any real certainty, but as long as we're indulging in this kind of (mostly baseless) discussion about motivations and causes, I'd like to point out a few problems.

When Prophecies came out, most players were new. This is important for two reasons. First, it means that most people don't have enough experience to hench the game. Second, it means that the playing field is more level for newbies and idiots. PuGing fails a great deal now because the good players are able to determine fairly easily that players X, Y, and Z on their team are clueless morons that should consider uninstalling the game. You couldn't perform this kind of evaluation if you were just starting the game yourself.

Aside from experience, one other thing that people didn't have when Prophecies first came out was huge friendlists and guild contacts. Most of the people who would never PuG still get their social gaming because of all the people they already know. There's no reason to PuG if you can assemble a full group out of just your flist, right?

So basically, as the game and playerbase mature, the game becomes less and less friendly to newbies and PuGs. Veterans continue to build skill and connections at their higher level of play, and their higher standards means that they are much less likely to be tolerant of incompetent players (whether they are idiots or just new to the game). Therefore, I don't think any comparison between the Prophecies environment and the Nightfall environment are really valid.

The way I read the situation you've described is this:
1) Players who can hench a mission, will.
2) Henching requires a certain degree of skill.
3) Heroes lowers the skill required.

This being the case, I don't see the decline of PuGs to be a bad thing. People who couldn't hench before because they weren't good enough to do it, now can. Furthermore, you should think about what your own argument implies: that heroes are better than players. So where should we place blame? Shouldn't it go on the shoulders of the average player, who can't even match a hero in effectiveness? I don't think anyone would argue that Heroes are remarkably intelligent or skilled - by all accounts, their AI is actually rather poor. So the fact that the group of 'indifferents' that you describe are choosing to hero/hench rather than PuG means that the average player can't even perform at the level of a poorly-written AI. Is it any wonder that PuGs are declining?

Another thing I'd like to point out is that the waves of anti-PuG sentiment started long before Nightfall came out, and it was not a minority opinion (at least within the forum community). All of the players I know henched Prophecies (and later, Factions) as soon as they were good enough to do it reliably. PuGing among my friends and I stopped as soon as we were any good at the game.

Anyway, this turned out to be a lot longer than I planned, but my point is this: you have to look at player motivations more carefully. Exactly why are more and more people choosing to hench rather than PuG? The answer that I've gotten is that PuGs flat-out suck, and heroes, if they have any effect at all, simply make it easier to avoid PuGs when you aren't good enough at the game to beat something with just henchmen. The heroes don't make much of a difference to veterans, because they've been able to hench the game since Prophecies.

If you want PuGing to happen more, improve the community, because that's where the actual problem is. The rest of the issues that have been raised might contribute to the existing problem, but they'd be irrelevant if people had any faith in their fellow players to begin with.

ozsparrow · Jan 10, 2007, 11:25 PM // 23:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaoticCoyote

Sure, some PuGs are poor -- but I PuG'd my way through Elona without much trouble. I did two missions with hero/hench, just to save time.

I've had a good time doing missions and quests with groups. Attack on Kodash is one example; another is Vizunah. Sure, I hit the occassional klinker, but most people are just having a good time.

If someone is having universally bad experiences with PuGs, I suggest they look at the common denominator -- themselves! Maybe if all the PuGs you are in stink, it's because *you* are in those PuGs?

Everyone makes mistakes; everyone screws up. Get over yourself.

Meanwhile, I'm heading back to Nahpui with my necro, to look for a PuG that needs a MM...

Here, Here. Well said. I totally agree. In any SNAFU, in my experience, there is a good chance that the common denominator is "YOU"! Perhaps that is a lesson that should be learnt when some of you hold up a mirror to yourself!

I have said some comments on other threads about this issue but I firmly believe that the decline in PUGs is socially driven and not because of game enhancements (eg. heroes etc).

Go to any major town and listen to the garbage being sprouted by other "players" (and I use that word very loosely) and you will understand why most seasoned and MATURE (emphasis deliberately added) players choose NOT to PUG any more.

Personally, I have PUGd my way through Prophecies not because I had to (ie. I have had constant success when I have decided to hench) but primarily because I play GW for the HUMAN interaction factor.

I ENJOY helping noobs (either directly during missions/quests) or by giving them weapons/items etc or by getting them to parts of the map which took me a lot longer to get to. Several people did this for me and I was also greatful. Several people were also abusive towards me as a noob and that was not very pleasant (yes, I have remebered these as well).

I ENJOY learning different aspects and skills from the game from other players (yes, I do acknowledge that I can continually learn something even though I consider myself a "seasoned" player...perhaps some others of you can get off your "holier than thou" soapboxes and recognise this fact as well!)

However, I do recognise and acknowledge that that is my personal choice. But, I fear that if the decline in PUGs is not arrested in some way soon that more and more people will drift from the game. After all, we play an online game for the human interaction factor, don't we? Anything else is a single player game that one can play out of a box! I can do that anytime but the GW experience is, IMO, a unique one that is not satisfied by other single player RPGs.

Some thoughts:

1. I oppose the kick idea as it would logically be abused. Eg. if I was leader on a mission that gave platinum + exp what is to stop me from using my group to get to the end of the mission and, just before finishing, kicking everyone out and thereby gain the "whole pot" for myself!

2. Perhaps, certain missions/quests can be made impossible to do with henches/heroes so that people are forced to PUG to complete them (eg. henches are rendered inactive in certain areas). Or, the mission/quest goal is not deemed complete unless human players are all involved. This would force people to PUG and may change some people's anti-PUG attitudes as well.

3. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I firmly believe that in-game players should seek to treat each other as they would expect to be treated!

I would like to see people kicked permanently out of the game more frequently that is occuring ATM. If that means that roaming in-game police are used by A-Net, then so be it! For example, the recent instance of in-game abuse evidenced on this forum by Gaile Gray with some other "players" (used loosely again) and their in-game comments was, IMHO, not handled strongly enough by A-Net. Those people in that exchange should have been banned and kicked!

We all sign up for the EULA and we should be expected to abide by it. Not selectively and periodically but constantly!

One warning and then OUT should be the way. People should be placed on probation by A-Net (ie. a "black list") for serious breaches (eg. racism, abuse, swearing, etc) and the next offence is fatal! Loss of playing PRIVILEGES should happen more often (yes, they are privileges and not RIGHTS as no-one has a RIGHT to play the game - even where one has bought the game IMHO). Reports by other players of such actions should be treated seriously by A-Net with the type of remedial action highlighted on the GW web site (yes, a "shame file" should be created).

More of these actions would, IMO, reduce the level of angst and aggro being shown by some players against other HUMAN players. After all, we don't break the law in real life primarily because we are afraid of the consequences of doing so (fines, loss of licence, jail, police action etc).

I dont know about you but my blocked list is becoming rather large ATM as it fills with complete idiots, morons, racists, abusers etc etc. The quicker these "players" are totally removed from the system the better the game will be.

I, for one, will continue to have faith in human nature and will continue to strive to PUG as I firmly believe that not all of the "eggs in the basket" are bad.

Perhaps some of you can also come down from your lofty perches and, by your good intentions and actions towards your fellow HUMAN players, change some of the in-game attitudes of your fellow players that seem to be permeating the game ATM.

ozsparrow · Jan 10, 2007, 11:42 PM // 23:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRaven

TOP TEN RULES FOR PUGS

1. It's Just a game

2. Make the goals clear before you start:
- Is everyone trying for masters?
- For FOW/UW, does everyone have the same agenda? Chest runs only? Beach spiders? Forge? etc.
- If there is a bundle item to carry, who will carry it?

3. As a PUG leader, choose a nice balance of professions. 8 Assassins probably won't win. Neither will 7 Warriors and 1 Monk. Most missions/quests will require at least 1 healer and a nice mix of melee attackers and casters.

4. If you anticipate the mission taking more than a half-hour then ask everyone if they can stay still the end. Nothing is more frustrating than Mommy calling your only Monk to dinner halfway thru the mission.

5. Make sure everyone is ready before starting. Everybody got their skills set? Does anyone need keys? Need to Merch first? Gone to the bathroom?

6. Don't force others in the PUG to play your ideal build. It's ok to suggest that "a trapper is better in this mission than an interrupter", but if the player you're talking to doesn't want to trap then don't force him. If a trapper really is necessary then kick him and advertise for a trapper. I play a Blood Necro and I lost count of the number of times I've been cussed out because I didn't start generating minions immediately. Hey, guys I never said I was a mm and you didn't ask me what my build was.

7. Kick the troublemakers. If you fail a mission, you generally know why. If the entire PUG just plain sucked then you might want to leave. Usually though it's just 1 or 2 bad players. Kick them and try again. This also includes the talented players that are just bad for morale. I went into the FOW the other day with a horrible horrible monk. As far as monking skills went, she was fantastic! She kept us all healthy and alive even when we made mistakes. However she was also cussing us out the entire time. "stupid noobs" "Idiot wammo!" "Are you a minion master? In fow?? What a moron!!" "F U, Rit!" "stfu warrior!" I'll never go on a another mission with her again, I don't care how badly we need a monk.

8. Be honest. If you've never done this mission before or are nervous about your skills then say so. Display your build and ask for advice. The leader may kick you, but if he does you wouldn't have enjoyed playing with those jerks anyways.

9. Speak up, but be courteous. If you have an idea that will contribute to the group, then mention it. For example:
- You've been trying to find an 8th person fruitlessly, but you know your hero could fill it easily. Ask if you can bring him.
- The leader is spamming "GLF 2nd Monk" but you think an elementalist would be a better choice. Ok, then say so and say why you prefer an ele.
- You think a certain skill sucks that someone just displayed. Politely suggest a different skill that they could bring.
- During the mission you see a player make a really bone-headed move. Instead of shouting "You f*** moron!!", give him/her tips that can improve his gameplay.
- Your dog just knocked the lamp off the table behind you. Tell your group you'll "brb in 1 min" instead of letting them wonder why you aren't attacking.

10. It's Just a Game. This isn't real life. So what if you fail a mission? It's not like it's a permanent scar on your life. (If it is, then you have other issues that need to be addressed!)

Wonderful precis of "PUGs 101", Raven.

As they said in "Top Gun"...."I would be proud to be your wingman anytime!"

Hope to find you in Tyria sometime and maybe we can party together!

More people with your attitudes in PUGs (and elsewhere in the game world, for that matter) would increase my in-game enjoyment immeasurably.

Keep up delivering the message!

The Ernada · Jan 10, 2007, 11:45 PM // 23:45

Ok some of you are getting the wrong impression that people who don't like PUGS are elitist and simply feel that everyone is a "noob." It's the bad attitudes of a lot of random people that I don't like, not so much their playing ability.

But when you combine a crappy immature attitude with a crappy playing ability, then it's just intolerable. Sure, there are plenty of good people with great and friendly attitudes, but sometimes I just want to play the game without the frustration of PUGs and trying to screen out the undesireables.

Here's some other reasons why PUGs (and any socializing which is a major factor in PUGGING) arent doing well in GW.

1. Instances make it impossible to meet other people while exploring, so there's no firsthand observation of a player's attitude and playstyle. This limits a lot of socializing and so it decreases the chance of wanting to PUG.

2. Once you go into an instance with specific people, you're stuck with them. You can't replace them with another person if they leave or quit.

3. Outposts are horrible places to socialize. It's all spam or inane banter. You can't really talk to another person to get to know them so you'd want to PUG with them.

4. No GMs or punishment for bad social behaviour. People can act like little shiites with no risk of punishment.

Jetdoc · Jan 10, 2007, 11:46 PM // 23:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

The way I read the situation you've described is this:
1) Players who can hench a mission, will.
2) Henching requires a certain degree of skill.
3) Heroes lowers the skill required.

This being the case, I don't see the decline of PuGs to be a bad thing. People who couldn't hench before because they weren't good enough to do it, now can. Furthermore, you should think about what your own argument implies: that heroes are better than players. Shouldn't it go on the shoulders of the average player, who can't even match a hero in effectiveness?

You're absolutely right on #1 through #3 above. But what does #3 mean? That those players with an average to above-average level of skill are now choosing to hero/hench rather than PuG. What does that do? Lowers the quality of PuGs. It's a vicious circle.

I also want to dispel the myth that heroes are better than the average player. The appeal of heroes is that you can CONTROL heroes, when you cannot CONTROL other players. You can set their skill bars, make them do exactly what you want them to do, and, if things don't go well, you can abandon them and restart. Although players have many complaints about PuGs, the root of the vast majority of their complaints is that they simply cannot control what the other players do. Unfortunately, that is an element of any multiplayer game, as pointed out by The Admins Bane earlier.

I've seen the phrase "I don't see the decline of PuGs to be a bad thing" way too many times, and it personally gives me a shudder. PuGs are a very good barometer as to the health of the multiplayer PvE community. In short, the more people you see out there actively attempting to play with other people, the more dynamic the multiplayer PvE experience is. Going into mission towns and seeing very few people attempting to group with others - that is a very good sign that the multiplayer PvE aspect (and community) is dying. And that, IMO, cannot be good for an online game like Guild Wars.

Burst Cancel · Jan 10, 2007, 11:46 PM // 23:46

@ozsparrow: the second half of your post is misguided and self-contradictory. For instance, you claim that you understand that your enjoyment of the multiplayer aspect of the game is a personal choice, and then in item #2 you suggest that all players be forced to multiplayer. If you're forcing your style of play on other people, that's no longer a personal choice, is it?

Your suggestion of in-game enforcement produces its own problems. What is considered acceptable behavior? Do we all have to be polite to each other? Are we going to have good-samaritan laws where all players are required to help other players? People are all going to have differing opinions on what is considered good manners or acceptable behavior, so it's inappropriate to start banning people for supposedly 'poor' social behavior. You'll notice it's not against the law to be rude or callous. Manners are taught in the home, and that's how it should stay.

Retribution X · Jan 11, 2007, 01:03 AM // 01:03

If they had introduces Heros in Prophecies, GW would not have been a big hit.

@Burst, To this end, you may not defraud, harass, threaten, or cause distress and/or unwanted attention to other players.

I think that covers Rude and Callous...

Burst Cancel · Jan 11, 2007, 01:05 AM // 01:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

I also want to dispel the myth that heroes are better than the average player. The appeal of heroes is that you can CONTROL heroes, when you cannot CONTROL other players. You can set their skill bars, make them do exactly what you want them to do, and, if things don't go well, you can abandon them and restart. Although players have many complaints about PuGs, the root of the vast majority of their complaints is that they simply cannot control what the other players do. Unfortunately, that is an element of any multiplayer game, as pointed out by The Admins Bane earlier.

The point of control is one I've always agreed with, but I also don't think that Hero > PuG is a myth. The most obvious evidence is in the results: PuG groups fail more than hero groups do. While complaints about control are certainly prevelant, you'll notice that most hero/hench advocates believe that heroes are straight-up more effective than humans because they're more likely to complete a mission successfully. If success rate isn't an indicator of superior effectiveness, I'm not sure what is.

The issue of control does, however, shift the argument from heroes vs. PuGs to veterans vs. scrubs, and illustrates a point that I have argued all along: many players are unhappy playing with people of a skill level and mentality significantly different from their own. Heroes perform as well as your ability to control them, and have no mentality, so they are obviously compatible with everyone that doesn't expect to have a conversation with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetdoc

I've seen the phrase "I don't see the decline of PuGs to be a bad thing" way too many times, and it personally gives me a shudder. PuGs are a very good barometer as to the health of the multiplayer PvE community. In short, the more people you see out there actively attempting to play with other people, the more dynamic the multiplayer PvE experience is. Going into mission towns and seeing very few people attempting to group with others - that is a very good sign that the multiplayer PvE aspect (and community) is dying. And that, IMO, cannot be good for an online game like Guild Wars.

Well, I can rephrase it if you wish. In context, my statement meant that I'm glad more people are able to play the way they want to play (ie. not PuG).

The problem here isn't that more people are hero/henching, but that more people *want* to hero/hench. PuGs are not a good barometer on their own, because the mere availability of PuGs speaks nothing to the reasons as to why you are seeing the numbers you are. Without those reasons, can you really hope to draw any accurate conclusions or make any useful suggestions?

I have always had the firmly-held belief that the problem lies in the community itself. While there are always exceptions (the people I eventually added to my flist), the people I've met in GW are not people I would like to play the game, or even have a simple conversation, with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retribution X

If they had introduces Heros in Prophecies, GW would not have been a big hit.

@Burst, To this end, you may not defraud, harass, threaten, or cause distress and/or unwanted attention to other players.

I think that covers Rude and Callous...

No, it really doesn't. For instance, I don't have to thank anyone for anything. That's rude, but it's not illegal or ban-worthy. I can leave in the middle of a mission for any reason, including ones like "these noobs aren't worth my time", which many people would consider callous, but again, is not illegal or ban-worthy.

The statement you made is open-ended, and you can interpret it as literally as you want, but the more literal you take it, the more absurd it becomes. For instance, playing with incompetent morons causes me distress, and anyone who messages me that isn't on my flist is giving me unwanted attention. I demand that those players be banned. Do you think that's reasonable?

strcpy · Jan 11, 2007, 01:19 AM // 01:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozsparrow

I have said some comments on other threads about this issue but I firmly believe that the decline in PUGs is socially driven and not because of game enhancements (eg. heroes etc).

I would generally agree. I think that most people would prefer to go with other people, not AI (personally I prefer AI more because I like to goof off). I think that hench/hero has little to do with it, I personally think that those that have left PUG's would have left GW if the AI option wasn't there. Or at the least would take one character through the game (or until the first major choke point) and then drop it until the next chapter. I think that the addition of the AI increases the overall population.

Quote:

Go to any major town and listen to the garbage being sprouted by other "players" (and I use that word very loosely) and you will understand why most seasoned and MATURE (emphasis deliberately added) players choose NOT to PUG any more.

That's my feelings on the issue. Missions I've always henched as the way I play tends to irritate other humans (note the above: goof off, I'm not oriented towards bonus and such). I've done quests in the early days and had a decent time but since about 6 months or so into Porphecies it crossed the line of non-enjoyment to me.

I would also add two other things. One is that quite a few classes and builds are really frowned upon. If you enjoy those things it can be a nightmare with trying to PUG. A large part of my enjoyment is playing with builds and one can not do that when going with PUGs. Secondly too many people are not willing to learn. I know I kept getting one individual in Unwaking Waters who would never take ranged damage and wouldn't run away from Kuunavang to fight the afflicted that spawned - though he was nice, polite, and generally a decent person as far as I can tell (a rarity now days it seems). That's not a big deal to me (I find it more amusing than anything - with no lasting death penalty I don't really care) but to many it is.

Quote:

2. Perhaps, certain missions/quests can be made impossible to do with henches/heroes so that people are forced to PUG to complete them (eg. henches are rendered inactive in certain areas). Or, the mission/quest goal is not deemed complete unless human players are all involved. This would force people to PUG and may change some people's anti-PUG attitudes as well.

We nearly have that in the two party missions. For many (myself being one) it has *really* turned me off. Rage quitting, verbal abuse, incompetence to the point I suspect they were intentionally damaging the mission, and just general suckiness shows me I *really* hate them much more now than when I quit joining them at all. Not to mention if you happen to play one of the unwanted classes you pretty much hit a block right then and there.

If you *really* wanted to do this better to have it like random arenas and randomly make the group. However, I suspect it will make some of the most hated missions in the game (much as the two party missions were, though some also really liked them).

Quote:

3. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I firmly believe that in-game players should seek to treat each other as they would expect to be treated!

This would solve most of it and is the root problem. Until that is fixed trying to force PUG's (either through difficulty or not allowing AI) will only make the situation worse.

Quote:

Perhaps some of you can also come down from your lofty perches and, by your good intentions and actions towards your fellow HUMAN players, change some of the in-game attitudes of your fellow players that seem to be permeating the game ATM.

I can not say I'm up on a high horse, I do not think I am that great a player. I just do not like the general abuse inherent in the game (and I do not think it is any worse in GW than any other online game, being able to hench is why I play this one over the others - I can choose what level of "multi-player" I want).

Skyy High · Jan 11, 2007, 01:31 AM // 01:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sophitia Leafblade

Good PUGs are like Diamonds, rare and precious, when u find one u dont want to let go.

Let me remind you that diamonds are currently useless in Guild Wars

Omega X · Jan 11, 2007, 01:57 AM // 01:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retribution X

If they had introduces Heros in Prophecies, GW would not have been a big hit.

I highly doubt that. Henchmen have always been there and people did use them. They always had. However the use increased when the degeneration of PuGs increased. When Nightfall came along, the damage was already done. Hero system only allowed more control over Henchmen.

What ANET could do to remedy the situation is to make Missions less stressful and more creative. Also they could change PvE gameplay to make it more rewarding to group with people than the Henchmen. And finally to teach new players more about the game than a little skimpy tutorial at the beginning. They could also introduce a difficulty system to let new people play at varying paces so that they are not overwhelmed.

But more than anything, the attitudes of players is the only thing that will be most effective at getting people to PuG again. I don't know how many times I've went into cities and see people arguing and swearing all over the place. It just makes you want to turn off chat and treat them like random NPCs.

Retribution X · Jan 11, 2007, 02:15 AM // 02:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

No, it really doesn't. For instance, I don't have to thank anyone for anything. That's rude, but it's not illegal or ban-worthy. I can leave in the middle of a mission for any reason, including ones like "these noobs aren't worth my time", which many people would consider callous, but again, is not illegal or ban-worthy.

The statement you made is open-ended, and you can interpret it as literally as you want, but the more literal you take it, the more absurd it becomes. For instance, playing with incompetent morons causes me distress, and anyone who messages me that isn't on my flist is giving me unwanted attention. I demand that those players be banned. Do you think that's reasonable?

No, It's not reasonable. You don't have to thank anyone for anything, but then, Gaile said something like, (I'm paraphrasing.) You play Anets game by Anets rules. You do not have the right to freedom of speach in guildwars, because, well, It's anets jurisdiction.

And, That isn't my statement, that's Anets. It's in the code of conduct we all agreed to.

"You may not use sexually explicit, harmful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, obscene, hateful, or racially or ethnically offensive language."

I believe calling people "Noobs" is defamatory.

BUT, We really shouldn't be arguing about this because,

"While playing Guild Wars, you must respect the rights of others and their rights to play and enjoy the game. To this end, you may not defraud, harass, threaten, or cause distress and/or unwanted attention to other players."

I agree with you. I've left groups because they were incompetent noobs. But if you come online, act like the other people are human. Rude and Callous comments can very well seem hateful to people, and CAN lead to banning.

~ReT~

My Sweet Revenga · Jan 11, 2007, 02:38 AM // 02:38

I chalk it up to laziness. Sometimes, by the time you manage to build yourself and organized pug, you could have taken heroes and henchies and finished the mission. And then there's the gambling factor where you may or may not end up with a good pug. 70% of the time I've usually ended up with at least 1-2 bad players and usually that's all it takes to scrap the mission. Guess I'm just unlucky with pugs. With henchies and heroes, at least you get a consistant performance from them =b

Burst Cancel · Jan 11, 2007, 02:45 AM // 02:45

Like I said, those statements are very open-ended, and you can take them as literally as you want. Can Anet ban you for not saying thanks? Probably. Will they? Very unlikely. Anet is free to ban me for being rude or callous if they want, I'll just take my business to some other MMO. They haven't yet, and I doubt they ever will, which is why I'm still more than happy to hand them my money every 6 months. There just isn't any game in existence that's good enough to make me put up with that kind of heavy-handed bullshit.

The bottom line is that, regardless of what's written in their EULA, if they start acting unreasonably they will lose business. And really, they can't implement their policy as literally as you are suggesting simply because it would require them to ban all of their customers. When you do something that someone else doesn't like, you are causing them distress, so I'm sure everyone has caused some other player distress at some point, meaning we are all eligible for bans. The entire line of thought is absurd - you know it, I know it, and Anet knows it. End of discussion.

And this is all off-topic anyway.