Making PuGs viable again

Well... you could give Vanguard points in Ascalon (Since the points are not named Ebon Vanguard, just Vanguard, and Both the Vanguard and the Ebon Varguard are Ascalonian Vanguards)

And Deldrimor in the Shouther, Norther Shiperpeaks and Grenth's Foot print.

But what about Kryta, Maguuma and the Crystal desert?
- Shinning Blade points?

And What about Shing Jea and Kaineng? Imperial service promotion?

Excellent idea - apply loot scaling principle to point grind.

With point grind being less linear and 'critical' than missions/dungeons, it's the kind of activity that people are more likely to 'risk' in a PUG. This way, you can meet new contacts, and work up to bigger challenges when trust is established.

Hope A-Net is reading.

By the way, I forgot to mention, the only reason I prefer H/H to PUGs is that I know heroes will *NEVER* quit during a mission. The problem with quitters is that once one goes, it often causes a domino-effect.

I would PUG a lot more stuff if leavers were replaced by a hero with the same skillbar and stats.

For example, Wammo gets to 60% DP and /ragequits because of 'noob monk'. They are replaced in party window by 'Tyrian Warrior' .... you know, rather like when you have a copy of a hero in the party.

This is not hard to implement and it would counter a serious PUG-trust issue.

I can see the logic in what you are suggesting, but you are treating matters of taste here as if they are matters of fact.

One of the attractive points about GW is that there are many different ways to counter threats.

If A-Net got involved in trying to promote the 'official' way to play the game, you'd find a bunch of people saying 'screw that, I did it better this way'.

About the closest they have come to this is beginner things like the 'Condition Chaining' quest in Shing Jea.

There are good and bad approaches to stuff (the example of Prot vs Healing being a good one) but that doesn't make it 'Right' and 'Wrong' to do things in a certain way.

GW is a constantly-changing environment with skill balances, loopholes and exploits that are constantly opening and being closed. To make these challenges (and by the way it sounds a little like Zaishen arenas?) could be a lot of work for A-Net and would inevitably the tests themselves would become criticised by people with differing opinions and, in time, become outdated.

It's an interesting idea but too flawed to work IMHO.

So true, especially for those monks that always seem to disconnect or go afk halfway through a mission. The problem was even worse back when there was no option to reconnect after being disconnected...

Hard Mode should be an entirley different world. ie: When you enter Hard Mode, you character is swiched to a world instanced for fow ALL hard mode players. This way, the game will lump all Normal mode players into one world and all hard mode players into another. This, I believe, would make group finding in hard mode a bit easier.. or maybe more annoying as most towns would look like the asian servers.. lol. ppl should check it out, I hear crickets in LA and ascalon. =P its like GW 2015. Still think my "better training" ideas were best for PuGs.

The only problem with that is that some people, specially in low-end areas, would 'give away' heroes. Some could even 'offer them' as services, taking a fee.
Join, leave, he stays with heroes and your clone (until zoning, of course).

So I would make that system work ONLY until after a certain time, like...
10 minutes for missions, and 30 minutes for explorable areas.

That way we prevent that.

Yes, this seems to be a more valuable PvE point sytem... i think this idea could be greatly explored by Anet....

But please, keep in mind.... the points MUST BE based on social level.... NOT endless hours of grinding (with or without players) to get a maxed ranking.... If you want to implement these titles, please make something that will be a social experience...

This wouldn't solve anything. This is just another way of saying "Rank q10!!! 2million xp!" It will give the people in the pugs bigger heads.

You can't use a test to weed out ego. And its worse than stupidity..

Let's keep it simple.

A title track where the player can select their own title, ranging from "Noob" through "Team Player" and "Team Leader" to "I am the Team". Or something of that nature. That should tell you who to avoid.

Yeah.... I'm a bad player and I want to join a PuG. I think I'd be smart enough to display another title other than "Noob."

Controversy? What controversy? It seems to me there are players contentedly playing GW primarily with their Heroes and henches with nary a complaint, and still more players happily playing either solo and/or with friends and fellow guildies, and other players who do PUG occasionally and are not having any major problems, and -- finally --- some players (the minority, I expect, though I have no hard data to support that) who want to group more often and are having a hard time finding decent groups -- PUGs, to be specific.

Your idea beats some of the ones I've read in that at least it isn't designed to force players to form player groups, I'll give you that.

But, see the second boldface section above... Is this really true? This is most definitely NOT the reason I avoid PUGs. The main reason I prefer not to PUG is because I prefer to play with people in my guild or alliance or, barring that, I actually like using henches or heroes. In other words, it is not that PUGs are bad but that Heroes and henches are better. I like trying my own skill combinations, my own hero/hench combinations, my own tactics and strategies, in my own timeframe.

I wouldn't care whether people passed the test you are proposing or not; I would still prefer not to PUG.


Again, this is a "problem" for you; it is not a problem for me.

I think your idea is pretty off-the-wall, frankly. I see what you're getting at, but whatever bad experiences I've had in PUGs weren't due to "dumbness" or "inexperience" per se but to arrogance, immaturity, and controversy among players. Maybe this is just me, but I am far less bothered by wipes caused by mistakes and inexperience than I am by obnoxious, know-it-alls who treat other players with contempt and have hissy fits for the most petty of reasons.

There is no "test" that I know of that will weed out such players in any game, shy of choosing to go solo. Mhenlo et al. may not always play that well, but they NEVER criticize my build, tell me how to run a mission, ragequit, call me "noob", insist on going left when I think we should go right. They attack the target I call, retreat when I tell them (well, mostly ), etc., and on and on it goes.


Your seven heroes idea is much better, imo. But I would only like them for the sheer "fun factor", not because I think seven heroes are necessary to solve a "problem".

As for me, as long as there are options, I always:

(1) Try to solo a mission/quest/dungeon first.
(2) If I fail, I try to solo it again. And again. And again.
(3) If I am still failing, I will scour wiki and guru for ideas and suggestions.
(4) Then I will try to solo it again. And again. And again.
(5) If I continue to fail and really do need help, I seek assistance from guildies/alliance/friends.
(6) If no guildies/alliance/friends are available, I'll wait till they are.
(7) After exhausting ALL of the above options, I will seek out a PUG.

Usually, I never have to go past steps 1 or 2 above.

A better way to "Make PUGS viable again" would be to create certain optional regions, missions, and dungeons that are reserved for player groups only. There are a few of these already in GW, a few more would not bother me -- I just wouldn't go anywhere near them.

Read one of those 300-page threads here or on GWOnline concerning 7-heroes where people argue back and forth to no avail.

I respect your opinion, I spend most of my time currently with H/H too; however, I don't like to deal with henchmen stupidity in some of the harder areas. Guildies/friends can't be online and willing to do whatever you want to do at all times. Since ANet is refusing us 7 heroes for their own dumb reasons, that leaves one last option.

I agree with this. But, I don't think there's a viable method to implement a maturity test.

It's not about promoting, it's about informing. Most PuG'ers out there don't know how to do anything except tank, nuke, and heal. They won't do anything else until presented with a situation where their current methodology doesn't work, even if such a party takes 5 hours to complete a mission while another one takes only 1 (and thus, is obviously better).

Aren't harder areas by definition better with a PUG (than solo, that is)?

I know, for example, that the various sections of Slaver's Exile can be h/h'd but, frankly, I don't think most people play well enough to do this. I know I can't, so I don't even bother with Slaver's at all. In a certain sense, making a dungeon, quest, or region really difficult encourages more PUGs. The more PUGs there are, the higher the proportion of good PUGs there will be, right?

Slaver's is an example of what I was referring to when I said GW should reserve special areas for player groups only. I've attempted Slaver's a couple of times and got so completely stomped I gave up on it altogether. Given a choice between PUG-ing or skipping an optional dungeon or area I am not able to Hero/hench I'll usually just choose to skip it.

While technically speaking, Slavers can be hero/henched, practically speaking it would be better to PUG it, I would think. Maybe GW just needs more areas like this? What if, for example, Slaver's had been designed to allow no use of Heroes or henches? That would certainly increase the formation of PUGs.

The best way would to improve the drop rate if it can be done with real ppl.I am not sure if this can done.

/not signed

What happens when the quests get wiki'd?

Exactly what does that accomplish? That and the bonus reputation thing suggested earlier. PuGs will still be filled with immature and bad players.

Wiki is made by the community. YOU and the rest of the community will have to refrain from putting it on wiki.

So only the idiots are poor? I think not.
I have pugged with the good, the bad and the pugly, and i can say from xp that i have seen some good teenage players that ran their char with precision timing and worked as a team. Maybe they cant afford a fee ... so they get the boot?

I have also pugged with adults who probly couldnt tie their shoelaces (thank heaven for velcro!) They can afford the fee, but theyre still bad players.

Point is, fees will NOT make GW better, nor will some title track or some IQ test/Solo mish.
This is the part where the GUILD in GUILD Wars comes in.

If you dont like to take the chance on a bad player/s in a PUG, then either solo or restrict yourself to Guild runs. Join a bigger PVE guild with a lot of active players and feel out who plays as you like.

To sum up ... a perfect example of why the OP's idea WON'T work is Driving.
People have to take a written test AND a practical exam. And yet ...
(Can ya guess where this is goin?)
THERE ARE STILL BAD DRIVERS!

Nuff said

LOL - so true - nice analogy. Also if surveyed, 9 out of 10 people say they are above average drivers... Guess that applies to PUGs too.

/unsigned

This would probably cause more problems than solve them. This idea would create ANOTHER reason to discriminate, people would never get picked up by groups if they didn't have the little indicator thing that showed they did this quest and egomaniacal smart people would just have their ego inflated further, and we would be back at point A.

Oh, and I probably wouldn't pass these tests, and I don't want a game that I payed $50 for to tell me I'm stupid. =P

It only takes 1 person.

Don't fully agree on this one.
A lot of people I pugged with are not those kinds of players.
They are decent and good people.
However, on the harder missions it takes time to organise a PUG and that's where the risk is. You wait 30 mins for someone who might never show up or you assemble a full team and one of them turns out to be 'bad'.
Or people don't have time for the mission anymore after waiting so long.
So you did not only waste time on the mission, but also the time building the team.

On the other side there is the fastest team to build, H&H.
Takes almost no time, load templates and go.
Second timewise and far superior is 2 humans + 6 heroes.
Full control of the heroes (assuming UAS) and only 'disadvantage' is finding one player to team up with that has the required heroes.

The main problem for PUG in my opinion is not a attitude problem, but a scheduling and resources problem.
If I want to set up a team and someone can match the preferred build/profession and has time, (s)he is welcome.
However, it could be hard to find such a player or he might lack the basic skills needed.

A scheduling service would be better!

Most people I have Pugged with have been nice players, but, recently I have had a couple of really bad experiences, where people were rude and verbally obnoxious. So, those few experiences have had a lasting influence on how I do things. I don't ever want to be in those situations again.

Lately, I have been doing the dungeons, HM, in GWEN with H and H. I find that I can easily finish all the dungeons that way. This has been extremely satisfying. I find it to be more challenging to control my character and the 3 other Heroes. I think I am good enough, now, to finish any mission/quest/dungeon this way. And, it's a relief to not have to deal with other peoples egos.

GW can be played a number of different ways. I can do the quests and missions in NM and HM. I can join a group or not join a group. I can farm, with a group or solo. I can explore and vanquish an area. All of these "styles" have good points and bad points. I never stick with any one thing and I switch off between them. We don't need a rating system or an IQ test or any kind of regulation. Just play the type of game that suits your personality.

Oh, no.

The reson I don't usually play in PUGs it's because they are usually deafmutes than may teamspeak with their friends/allies, but barely use the chat, neither use the target ping feature.

So I get bored in pugs, and I only go in them with friends and people more 'sociable' or in places where ou can go only in parties.

Are you certain? Some here stated they'd rather join with sociable noobs then with expert super-ego's. I wouldn't be surprised if a good share of the ego's picked a choice that would tell anyone lese to stay away from them.

Which one would you pick for yourself?

Or maybe rp-style, self made character description could provide information about the type of player better then any title track.

No I'm just saying your title track idea is a pretty dumb idea because it won't do anything to filter out bad players in the game. Titles don't tell anything about a player's skills or what type of player this person is, as anyone can put a different title on them! The only time you can tell what kind of player your dealing with is when you accept him/her into your group and play with that player, not some silly little gimmick that anyone can put over their names.

No Stupid Roleplaying Profile is going to tell what kind of player you are either. Backgrounds might be fun idea but in the end its just another gimmick that anyone can do so I don't think this will do anything to filter out Noobs or Large Ego players either.

In the end I'm back to my original statement Noobs, and Jerks, and people that think their great are always going to be in any game no matter what. Part of playing the game is being a grown up and just dealing with them, the ignore player option is included in Guild Wars... maybe everyone should just stick with that instead of whining to Arena.net about an unrealistic solution. In the end of if you don't like playing the game anymore then DON'T PLAY IT!!!! IT'S JUST A GAME!!!!

You have the best chance of guessing what type of player you have in front of you by what they choose to say about themselves - or their character, more then game-accomplishments or title-grinding. Beyond this, I don't see much you could do but talking with people when forming the group and while actually going through the mission.

Amen to that

whoa ... I PuG (not with the Saints)... and players actually like including me into the group ... I do what is needed and we accomplish things fine ie. missions and bonuses without any problem ... for that matter I don't know that the party I'm in isn't all a bunch of PuG's out havin' a good time getting things done ... Don't judge all books buy one cover you felt annoyed with, hmm ... maybe the problem isn't the PuG's but you ...

I resist Sa...Oh you mean a PUG, I have the natural affinity to ward off the stupidity generally associated with that infamous 3 letter Acronym in pve, AB is a different story but even then I afk till someone comes along that I know. Not to be an elitist or anything but I do not take pleasure in failing an easy mission. Nothing impresses me more than skill, not the flashy things they have on their character, but since there is a general lack of it, I tend to stay H/H with a friend...Much more reliable... There's no way to fix the PUG situation in Guild Wars, I've gotten used to it and made the decision to exorcise it away with trying to maintain a healthy friends list that also has a healthy friend's list... Keep the players you like on your friend's list, it helps a lot!

Adjust the gold division formula so that for each human player, the gold is divided in less ways, so ultimately an 8-person team of all real people gets the face value for the gold, (and not a fraction of it).

Pugs will suck until Anet invents a time machine so I can get my time back.

Why do people think it's some sort of goal in itself to force people to join PUGs?

/Anti-signed.

While forcing people to play PUG is not the way to go, making teaming up with random players easier (and perhaps more attractive) is something that could be done to improve the situation.
I don't need the feature, the guild and alliance are large enough to support the teaming needs.
However, a large part of what is holding me back from playing PUG more often is not the bad players but the time it takes to get a (decent) team for a certain mission.
Why would I want to wait 30 minutes when I can get one player in 5 mins, load some heroes and rampage through.
Something that's far harder to achieve with a full pug group, since there is more risk of one player making a mistake.

One could actually state that the game is punishing players that want to team up with a full group of random people.
They have to wait much longer, they can't always control the skills, gear and professions of the other players and they never know if there is a mental retard hidden in one of them.
Also in certain areas one is bound to fixed 'cookie cutter' builds when teaming up.
Heroes fixed a problem, but created a new one.

To fix this, A-net could either make teaming easier, reward teaming more when there are more human players or leave the current situation (the party-window change helped, but can be improved).
The only 'real' solutions for the problem are currently outside the game, like event calendars maintained by players/guilds or PUG sign-up threads.
And it should be obvious by now that only a small percentage of the GW players actually uses outside resources.

Force to pugs is already fixed in GW2.

No henchmen, only one side-kick

Join or die, XD.

IQ test, lmao! Here I have a better idea. Everytime a group fail, each member can vote that if the guy is a noob or not. If 5/8 say yes then that guy NEED to go to school and have a teacher that TEACH him how to play the game right. Then after the lesson, that guy NEED to do the mission AGAIN till he knows what can be done better. If he fails again he has to take lesson again till he pass it. As long as he has not passed the test, he's not ALLOWED to play anything in the game.

yeh yeh? Sign for my idea anyone? LMAO

Or don't buy. G'night ANet.

If there's really enforced PUG-ing/grouping in GW2, that will be the proverbial nail in the coffin for Guild Wars, imo. It's the game itself, not the player(s), as you infer, that will die.

I don't.

But we're obviously not getting 7 heroes so I'd like an alternative to dealing with stupid henchmen when my guildies/friends aren't available.

Your loss, you'll believe it when you see it.

I agree totally with Raku Clayman. (page 1). He said it perfectly. I very rarly join a pug. If I have no guild members on, i wait till they get on to do what needs to be done if i cant seem to H/H it. And there isnt much I cant H/H. 7 heros? That would be the best thing they could do for us since the creation of heros. Its not that i dont like playing with others, I just dont like playing with stupid people or cry baby 12 year olds.
stupid people are (example)- warrior, runs way ahead of group, dies and wines because the monk didnt heal him. If hes dumb enough to not stick with the group then he doesnt deserve healing. I guess the cry baby 12 year old could fall under that group too.
I raised my cry baby kids, got them out of the house, what makes people belive I would want to put up with someone elses cry baby brats on a game? Its not as if we can ask someone before getting into a pug with them...Are there any cry babies in the group? yes? then no thank you. No? ok, we will see. Personally I prefer to just not put myself in a situation where someone may piss me off. If i want social interaction, I just hang out in town and talk to people there, and sometimes we get together and go do something, after figuring out that we all arent a bunch of whiny brats. Im also not saying all kids are brats, some can actually be quite inteligent, more intelegent then some adults and also less whiny then some adults, but I still prefer not to be a party to the "iffy" situation.