Curse

vandevere · Mar 03, 2010, 11:30 PM // 23:30

As we all know, the recent nerfs were done to promote group play. Whether this is a good thing or not is a discussion for another thread. I'm thinking of ways to make pugging-one mode of group play-a little more enjoyable.

One of the major issues with pugs is the threat of leavers.

It's not so bad when the mission is short; but some of the higher-level missions are very involved, and rather long too.

Sp, often people just don't have the time to play the whole mission; others just leave at the least setback; and there are also the inevitable pc issues where the player simply gets disconnected...

What this game needs is a way to replace leavers mid-mission. Even if it's just a Hero, or an available npc henchy, we do need this...

jazilla · Mar 04, 2010, 12:33 AM // 00:33

A-Net has talked in length about how you will be able to add players during a game in GW2. There are however, no talks about it happening in GW1. I am sure this has been talked baout in a thread many times, and this late in the games life, I don't see them doing it at all. The only feedback they seem to be taking at this time is on skill updates. They are also working on that "apocalypse" stuff that was in one of the dev interviews. I am sure between that stuff and GW2, their plates are all too full to do anymore. In a perfect world, they would have released GW2 on time, or another expansion. Oh well.

Shayne Hawke · Mar 04, 2010, 12:56 AM // 00:56

PuGs would be more fun if I could count on the general player not being pants-on-head retarded. I don't really see what ANet can do to fix this.

Zahr Dalsk · Mar 04, 2010, 12:59 AM // 00:59

The problem isn't people leaving, the problem is people being idiots who think this is WoW and can't run a real build.

gremlin · Mar 04, 2010, 01:06 AM // 01:06

The summoning stones that already exist in the game would be good enough to replace departing players.
Good enough that is in the run of the mill pve missions and quests, elite and end game areas are still best done with regular friends and guildies.

As for players being stupid in the game, yes that's a pain.
Inexperience and mistakes are fine but when they just run into mobs till they die so much they give up and leave then that is inexcusable.

Players with bad builds well that's the chance you take just make a note and don't take them again.

Cuilan · Mar 04, 2010, 02:58 AM // 02:58

I recently did City in DoA with two leaver monks. We did most of it without them and it was more rewarding with them gone. Normal mode, true, but I got extra gemstone drops.

Braxton619 · Mar 04, 2010, 03:16 AM // 03:16

Basically what others said. PUGs are generally retarted and nooby. It's better to H/H.

Cuilan · Mar 04, 2010, 04:19 AM // 04:19

PUGs are wonderful and amazing when I'm leading them. Uh oh, there goes your theory.

Amy Awien · Mar 04, 2010, 10:03 AM // 10:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by vandevere

One of the major issues with pugs is the threat of leavers.

Don't see it as a threat, you can normally finish an 8 man mission or area with 6. See it as a relief for the healers, a player less means one less meatbags to heal.

upier · Mar 04, 2010, 11:56 AM // 11:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shayne Hawke

PuGs would be more fun if I could count on the general player not being pants-on-head retarded. I don't really see what ANet can do to fix this.

Actually, I would imagine we would all agree that the game was on it's PUG-wise high when we were all pants-on-head retarded. The problem is that the design of the current game does not give you the option of being bad if you want to achieve goals that are beyond finishing the game in NM. The amount of grind needed to achieve certain goals means that you can not allow yourself the option of failing.
My fondest GW memory is when I did Althea's Ashes with some random guys and we got to the pyramid and saw we couldn't take down all the bad guys, so we just decided to all rush in, in hopes that at least one person gets to pick them up. And then we'd die, and do the EXACT same thing again, but with the people who already got the ashes serving as shields this time.
Today, I'd rage on those guys, dash back to the outpost, grab my heroes and let them blow up everything so that I can get back to grinding my ass off for the Luxon title.

vandevere · Mar 04, 2010, 06:23 PM // 18:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

Don't see it as a threat, you can normally finish an 8 man mission or area with 6. See it as a relief for the healers, a player less means one less meatbags to heal.

Unless, of course, it's the healers who left...

End · Mar 04, 2010, 11:18 PM // 23:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

The problem isn't people leaving, the problem is people being idiots who think this is WoW and can't run a real build.

I choose her for my team

Kopa The Demon King · Mar 04, 2010, 11:29 PM // 23:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by vandevere

Unless, of course, it's the healers who left...

Which is usualy the case...that or the tank.

Zahr Dalsk · Mar 05, 2010, 01:57 PM // 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kopa The Demon King

Which is usualy the case...that or the tank.

If your party has a tank then sad to say, they're the idiots I spoke of.

Jeydra · Mar 05, 2010, 04:12 PM // 16:12

Nothing wrong with running a tank.

!support this idea.

Bob Slydell · Mar 05, 2010, 10:07 PM // 22:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazilla

A-Net has talked in length about how you will be able to add players during a game in GW2. There are however, no talks about it happening in GW1.

Well if it's going to be 'like' most other MMO's with a persistent (or mostly persistent giant zones) the party system won't be restricted to being built in towns.. it'll always be open to kicking/adding in the middle of a mission/quest.

Axel Zinfandel · Mar 05, 2010, 10:38 PM // 22:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeydra

Nothing wrong with running a tank.

!support this idea.

Everything is wrong with running a tank in GW.

Zahr Dalsk · Mar 05, 2010, 11:02 PM // 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeydra

Nothing wrong with running a tank.

!support this idea.

I hope I never encounter you in a PUG. There's enough idiots already going "HURRR WE NEED A TANK."

When your party has a "tank":

- enemies attack your party due to the way Guild Wars monster AI handles targeting priority
- your "tank" is leeching off the group by dealing no damage and not supporting the party

When the party has a real warrior:

- the party is under Save Yourselves, gaining high armour and thus resilient to damage; priority to target the warrior is also higher so monks can focus prot a bit more on him
- the warrior is dealing proper damage with an attack skill or endurance+scythe

The party with a real warrior, rather than a tank, will perform better and more quickly.

MagmaRed · Mar 06, 2010, 12:18 AM // 00:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

I hope I never encounter you in a PUG. There's enough idiots already going "HURRR WE NEED A TANK."

When your party has a "tank":

- enemies attack your party due to the way Guild Wars monster AI handles targeting priority
- your "tank" is leeching off the group by dealing no damage and not supporting the party

When the party has a real warrior:

- the party is under Save Yourselves, gaining high armour and thus resilient to damage; priority to target the warrior is also higher so monks can focus prot a bit more on him
- the warrior is dealing proper damage with an attack skill or endurance+scythe

The party with a real warrior, rather than a tank, will perform better and more quickly.

Not true for all cases. Teams that know how to make use of a Tank can do so to great advantage for certain things. PUGs, however, rarely understand the concept correctly. But waiting for the tank to gather and control aggro will allow the team to stay clear of enemy attacks. This allows for skills that taget multiple enemies to be put to greater use since the monsters will be gathered around a single player. PUGs using tanks can work, but it is extremely uncommon. And tanks are not useful in all situations, but tanking is not a bad thing when done correctly.

Jeydra · Mar 06, 2010, 01:28 AM // 01:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

I hope I never encounter you in a PUG. There's enough idiots already going "HURRR WE NEED A TANK."

When your party has a "tank":

- enemies attack your party due to the way Guild Wars monster AI handles targeting priority
- your "tank" is leeching off the group by dealing no damage and not supporting the party

When the party has a real warrior:

- the party is under Save Yourselves, gaining high armour and thus resilient to damage; priority to target the warrior is also higher so monks can focus prot a bit more on him
- the warrior is dealing proper damage with an attack skill or endurance+scythe

The party with a real warrior, rather than a tank, will perform better and more quickly.

Because tanks = Defy Pain Warriors am I right? Or do you think tanks = SF Assassins, OF Elementalists, etc? Well newsflash: you're too stereotyped.

One of the most important skills to bring into HM is Prot Spirit. Why? Because Prot Spirit lets you tank. Tanking lets you ball enemies. Balling enemies lets you hit all of them with AoE attacks, AoE spells and deal lots of damage before their aggro scatters. The toughest areas in the game like SoO HM, Duncan HM, Vloxen's HM, etc would be so much harder if you didn't have Prot Spirit in the team.

You notice Kopa said teams will fail if the healer leaves, or the tank. Any individual player can leave because aggro can still be gathered with only Prot Spirit. But if the player with Prot Spirit leaves, and you are in the harder areas in the game, well good luck to you.