PUG Management 101: Advertise / Interview / Assign Role / Complement

I think much of the "bad PUG" threads here fail to recognize that the primary failure is not individuals in the PUGs, but rather inexperienced management. PUGs are made of people, and as such, there is a certain human element communication which must be taken into account. I rarely "join" a PUG any more, instead I usually start my own -- beginning with an advertisement, one for each slot.

Overall, I think I've had a far greater success rate /w PUGs than average. For an example, I'm drawing on my experience last night, where either the technique worked -- or I got very lucky. Regardless, I start with an advertisement of _each_ slot. Then I conduct interviews and as a team assign roles. During the mission I provide constant feedback on performace. In this session, a repremand wasn't needed; but, sometimes a two-second (private) repremand can go along way towards having a group play well together. Without further ado, here were my advertisements:

---
Help Wanted: Monk needs a Mesmer to Shut-Down [Specific-Caster-Type]

I got 3 replies. One response was: "I'll shut down those pesky [xxx] for you. I use inspiration to drain their energy, and then I interrupt them with domination skills". Hired. I confirmed that he had 2h to play, and I instructed him to go take a break for 10-15 min while I hire more.

Help Wanted: Monk needs a Ranger to Cripple, Distract, and cause Mahem

I got 6 replies. One response was: "Not only can I cripple and distract, I'm an excellent puller/runner; and I carry rebirth". Hired. I confirmed he had 2h to play, and instructed him to take a break for 8-13 minutes.

Help Wanted: Monk needs a Necromancer to Weaken and Steal Life

I got 4 replies. Two of them happened to be death necromancers, which I didn't ask for. One of them was a ne/wa, but he told me he did "alot of dmg"; no thanks. I asked for weaken. Finally, I got a Ra/Ne that replied, and said: "I'm a ranger, but I use the curses line (10). I do enfeebling blood and barrage". Hired. I confirmed he had 2h to play, and instructed him to take a break for 6-11 minutes.

Help Wanted: Monk seeks Elementalist to AoE. I want them dead.

I got 2 replies at first, and then 3 more. The fella that described how he could take-out a large group "if you can convince the warrior to clump them". Hired. I confirmed he had 2h to play, and instructed him to take a break for 5-12 minutes.

At this time... something suprising happened. I had 2 monks on my "join" bar. One of them sent me a message: "are you hiring another healer?". I replied to ask: "are you a tank?" The person responded: "ah, no". Hired. I confirmed they had 2h to play, and could take a break for 3-7 minutes. The monk later told me that he was "impressed" that I wasn't advertising for a monk. Sometimes the best way to get a good partner is to play "hard to get"

So, at this time, I had:
- Mo/Ra (protection monk)
- Me/Mo (drain/interrupt mesmer)
- Ra/Mo (puller, distractor, rezzer)
- Ra/Ne (barrage, weakener)
- El/Mo (nuker)
- Mo/Me (full healer)

Things are looking pretty. I've got 2 more hires left.

Help Wanted: Monk seeks Tank to protect and occupy incoming warriors

I got a bunch of replies. I got lots of invites; but only one reply. This fella asked me to "give him a chance" and said he'd "keep those axe blades busy". I asked him if he knew how to aggro, and he replied: "I'm an elementalist's best friend". Hired. I told him we'd be leaving in about 2-5 minutes.

I did very good up to the last hire, another elementalist; he disconnected at the first sign of difficulty. This was my fault -- it was a bad hire. I had forgotten to ask him for 2h of his time. Asking people to commit to 2h is very important -- it is a promise. It reminds people that they are working with other humans and that they are wanted. You have to ask, and they have to accept. Also, since he was the last person hired, I don't think he knew that everyone in the group had been explicitly hired.

Anyway, before we left, I spent another 30 seconds reviewing for each of them what their role was. What I expected them to do; this was in the "team chat" so that everyone could see that everyone else was given a job. People don't mind working if they know that others are also working. They are willing to forgive mistakes if they see that everyone else is committed. Interestingly enough, the last hire started to show problems this early -- he insisted that he was going to do a Mark of Rogot rather than using AoE spells. I should have kicked him right there -- bad hires do make themselves known early, if you are willing to listen.

The last thing I did, was, between each "breather", complementing each person. The first time through, I complemented the other healer. Then I complemented the tank for "excellent clumping". Then, when we had casters, and the bars were not going down, I complimented the mesmer. By the time we were 20% into the mission, everyone had been complemented at least once. Compliments do several things:

- You re-enforce what role you need them to play for the team build; if they get complemented for building a aggro circle for the Elementalist, they will continue to do this.

- When they are complimented, it makes them feel appreciated; and this reduces the chance of a disconnect. A small complement can go along way towards building loyalty.

- When one person is complimented, it brings to the attention of the rest of the team that they are playing with good people. It also reminds them that they are in a "team" rather than soloing with henchmen.

Positive re-enforcement during a mission is as important as good hiring pratices. As my real-life manager/mentor would tell me: if you have one bad-apple, that is to be expected. If you have mostly bad-apples, you are doing something wrong -- it is a mangement failure. So, I leave with one question to those who complain about PuGs:

Is it the PuG that was bad -- or the management of the PuG?

I think those are the best tactics for hiring for a PUG. I wish there were more leaders like you who actually know what they're looking for and have a plan set out. I've been in too many groups were the leader will take the first person that invites themself, and as long as he/she has monks, we start. Bad PUG management is defintely what kills the team.

I played in a PUG where the leader dropped , but we still worked together excellently and managed to beat the mission (even after a second person dropped). We had no leadership really, but we all knew what we were supposed to do...

Yeah, it's nice to travel with IxChel - he's a very good leader and one of the best monks I've been with. Thanks for the pointers

ya...this entire thread was voided out of my memory as soon as I saw "Monk needs...."

Monk gets whatever he wants...most of the monks in this game are AWFUL, but they get whatever they want in a group as every party needs one. A good monk is rare....but it's painfully obvious when you're playing with one.

regardless...finding a group as a monk isn't difficult....not even a little bit. If you spend more than 3 minutes LFG as a monk you're wasting time.

I can imagine it now. Try saying "Ranger needs...", and see where you get from there

Still, his point is entirely correct, maybe it is easier to form a group as a monk, but it is the selection of the group members that makes the difference. Leadership and managing makes a big difference, and if as a leader you have a plan, and can get the right tools for it you are almost guaranteed success - if you try to do something with the tools at hand there's a good chance of messing up. I'd rather use the right tool, and I think that's the error of the classic PuG - that they use whatever tools are around. Then again, it can be interesting, like when you beat a mission in an all ranger party because that's what happened to be around, but I can see how taking a firm grip on the reins and directing the recruitment would make a difference.

Yeah, it might take longer saying "Group needs..." instead of "Monk needs..." but it'll work. I'm going to do this tonight for a try - and I bet we'll breeze through the missions.

You are correct that monks are very important. However, I also have made very successful PUGs as a mesmer and a warrior primary. The key to successful PUG recruting for a non-monk, is to make your monk your first hire -- and talk to them carefully about your plan. They can be mostly idle for 15 minutes while you then form the rest of the group. It may take you 15 minutes to get a monk's ear -- but you can get them. Start with a /msg which goes like:


Hello. I'm an experienced PUG leader, and I'd like to start a group with you. It'll be about 15 minutes, but I can assure you that the group will be a good one. What say you?

If you spend less than 5 minutes as a monk, LFG, then you're wasting your time. When doing a mission, you are investing 1-2h, plus another 1h*N where N is the number of follow-up missions you run. As a general, rule, you might want to consider spending 20% of that time _looking_ for a good group - interviewing them, etc. As a Monk I never join a pre-formed group that wants to leave right away. Unless there is clear leadership, roles spelled out, and good amount of chat -- I leave the group. No use wasting 30 minutes on a PuG that is doomed to fall apart.

That said, even as a non-monk I've put together groups that didn't have _one_ primary monk (and once we didn't even have a secondary monk). With coordination and team-play, it went quite smoothly. Without a monk we had extra fire-power. So, we used it wisely with a hit-and-run approach: not one death in the ring-of-fire.

Added Note: If someone in your PUG starts complaining beacuse y ou haven't left yet -- kick them. This is the person that will disconnect at the first sign of trouble. If they arn't patient enough to put together a good team, then they arn't patient enough to handle a serious setback. And serious setbacks do happen.

I definately understand where you're coming from...I prefer organization over brawn. Just pointing out the bias that's prevalant in GW....Monks are treated like gods.

btw...you should help me do Bloodstone fen.

Eh, you don't always need good organization and good planning for a good PUG. Sometimes, it's all about personality; "are they easy going?", etc. I just recently had a group for a mission, hastily thrown together by the leader, and as soon as we get into the mission, this one guy goes AFK. So, rather than complaining and/or quitting, guess what the rest of the group does? /dance

We must have waited a good 30 minutes there. Most people, while we were waiting, went to do stuff like get food, etc., and we just sat there emoting, chatting, and other such "useless nonsense". And when we finally did get to the mission, it went VERY smoothly with few deaths. It was a good group...even if it was just several random people thrown together

This is a very good thread, I love reading threads like this that give out good info and alittle story. I have a few stories of groups that were going bad but with some leadership, even though I wasn't the leader, and a handful of compliments we not only finished the mission but also did the bonus and alittle giant killing.

I play a monk and have been invited to many-many groups, the ones that realy catch my eye are the whispers advertising the leaders experience, group size/classes and what they need. I would usually group with them even if I was going to hunt down some skills or even log. So advertising is very important. I think the moral of this story is not to point your finger to where you think the sorce of the problem is but to adjust your tactics to become more successful

I'd like to say that _most_ of the people playing actually know what they are doing. Most of the people are well-meaning, and quite competent -- even the 12 year olds. I don't buy this everyone-else-is-an-idiot talk, it just isn't true (Manadar: I know you arn't saying this, it is just a common theme). Further, if people play as a team, they don't have to have the smartest. Certainly, it helps to have clever, experienced people. However, it just isn't required -- and for PUGs it isn't very likely. You have to make-do with what is available within about 20 minute formation time-slot.

The difference between a good PUG and a poor PUG isn't the people; its how they respond when shit hits the fan. Your "casual" PUG responds with drawing on the map, pinging, going-off-on-their-own, or disconnecting. And then where are you? 30 minutes wasted, and you still have to form another PUG. Your organized PUG responds gracefully from the tragedy -- restarting from the beginning if need be. On average, an organized PUG, even with 20% startup cost, will make it through the missions on the first or second try.

That said, if someone in your PUG starts complaining because you haven't left yet -- kick them. This is the person that will disconnect at the first sign of trouble. If they are not patient enough to put together a good team, then they are not patient enough to handle a serious setback. And serious setbacks do happen.

Two comments. First, I think you got lucky with that particular group. Second, the 30 minutes "together time" actually did build the "committment" necessary for a good team. My point is to not "rush" into the mission -- if anything, your story confirms this. Hanging out for 20 minutes before you enter the mission is a good thing; sounds like you did it right after you entered the mission, but before you really 'engaged'. This works.

Second, I think you're confusing 'leadership' with 'dictatorship'. No one likes a dictator. The goal of the leader is to be kind and easy-going without telling people in-their-faces what they are going to do. A good leader channels people's efforts -- not controls them. Robots are controlled, people are coaxed. Your 30 minutes of 'chatting' served to build team-loyalty and a sence of community that a good PUG should strive to build. Perhaps it is by accident that this happened; or that each person in the group did their part of being a leader!

This is true, I have experienced this before. Getting a group together and see someone LFG, invited him and we were now looking for 2 more (can't remember the classes), the last guy invited was wanting to get going and wanted me to invite any and everyone available. His persistance was starting to annoy me. I was looking for a particular class btw. I was about to kick him but we then got a full group so off we go. Guess who was the first one to disconect after running into a crowd of red dots. Even though I made sure we all had time for this mission.

Might be easier with a monk to be able to organize so... impeccably? (trying to find a word that means organized to an extreme without resorting to a word that implies insult...)

However I think that much of the challenge DOES come with working with what you have. Sort of you fitting the mold instead of making the mold fit you. SomeTimes you think you might have everything mapped out but all it takes is a single "leeeeeroy jenkins!" moment to throw everything off kilter.

The word you might be looking for -- rigidly? I don't think that I was inflexible -- my primary hiring constraint wasn't if/how they were going to follow my wishes. I had in mind a life-stealing necromancer, for example, but instead I picked a ra/ne. I did this because the person had a good story to tell -- he made an excellent player.

Rather, my goal in the interview is to assess if the player is competent, and knows their role in the team. A warrior is a tank (not a solo-super-hero). A ranger is a disruptor (or damage-dealer). A healer, well, heals. My chatting with them wasn't to dictate to them how to play -- but rather to confirm that they knew what their role is. In other words, I wanted to make sure that the monk didn't think he was going to tank -- or if he did (and that's fine), I would have asked him _how_ he intends to tank; and then I'd be looking for another healer to back him up.

The only part that I was really "inflexible" about was death necromancers; and this is a personal bias. It is very hard to control 'aggro' with minions (or warrior henchmen) -- they tend to go every which-way. I've yet to meet a good minion-master (I myself make a poor one). That said, I'll give one a chance if they seems like they can complement a group.

It is a balance between these two extremes. The "impeccably" organized team might not ever leave the station - and is doomed to fail if the leader tries to be a dictator. On the other hand, the totally random group will probably never make it past the first serious mission challenge.

I do have to say Ixchel as a recent MBA graduate I am glad to hear that other people understand "management." It isn't telling people what to do, it is guiding a team of professionals to a common goal. Amazing the real world applications eh? hehe, should start up a video game management school.

Both.

You're also forgetting one thing. Most people (or at least so it is claimed on this board whenever the topic of loot/farming/grinding/items etc is discussed) only play casually, an hour here or an hour there.

It's great that you ask people if they have 2 hours, and they stick with it, however, most people don't have the time nor the desire to have 30 mins worth of interviews to find a PuG for their remaining 30 mins of play.

They have little other choice besides just joining the next group to form up and hoping for the best.

Btw, with regards to PuG management. I often see the opinion that he who forms the group is the leader. This is nonsense. If there is no leadership in a PuG, TAKE CONTROL. On my succesful run through Elona, I had never even finished the mission, had tried and failed it once with henchies, but I had read several threads about tips on what to do etc.
Our leader was a nice gal but it was obvious she didn't know what she was doing. So I just started giving tips and orders.

We made it through the mission with 8 minutes to spare, and I had to apologize that we hadn't done the bonus, since we'd obviously had the time for it.

If there is nobody in charge, TAKE CHARGE.

Creston

While I agree with Creston that many only like to play for an hour or so (even myself), I like to make sure that if I absolutely had to, I would have time to spare. So that way, if there are some unexpected happenings, I have made time for it.

I didn't say 30 min of interviews. I set an expectation that we will leave _within_ 20 minutes. It usually takes me 10 to complete interviews. After you have everyone together, there is at least someone who has to reskill, and by the time all is said-and-done, it's 20 minutes (worst case) for the first person you've invited. On average, I think it is a bit more than 10 minutes for later 'hires'. But, if you say 20, and you deliver a team in 10 -- you maintain your respect. If you say 10, and you are on your 13th minute looking for that last person -- you will get people dropping out. So you take an extra 10 minutes at the start. Not a big deal. If you've cut the 'drop-chance' by half, it is more than worth it. Anything less, IMHO, is rushing it.

More generally, anything less than a 2h commitment is a waste of everyone's time. On average, one person of 8 will commit, and then have to leave within the hour. But those are the odds, you live with it. It's a matter of managing people's expections. If you ask people to reserve 2h to do the mission and you all die about 30 minutes into the mission, you have a much better chance of people sticking with you for a second attempt. Set low expectations so that you can exceed them.

That will work in most cases, unless you set them too low. But it seems like you set them reasonably low, so it all works out