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

Hehe im to lazy to form a group but when we start and the leader doesnt manage the team i start to say: "listen i know the mission we can make it if we...". Then i have to explain (most times Oo) how to use T and why. I call targets and pull the Mobs. I wonder how many teams changes from a bad team of 8 runners into a well fighting one.

This was a great post. Although some would argue that so much management is not necessary, I was impressed by the whole process. I liked how every member was chosen to do a specific thing. The more qualifications and specifics IxChel enumerated, the sorrier I felt for the mobs.

"Monk needs a Ranger to Cripple, Distract, and cause Mahem."

"Monk seeks Elementalist to AoE. I want them dead."

LOL. This guy is serious and dangerous. Hiis team is going to destroy everything in its path. Who wouldn't want in? Again, impressive.

The other night, I joined a PuG with four warriors and two rangers. Although there was a secondary healer or two, I offered to drop out so the team could get a primary healer and/or elementalist or, you know, something a bit more, um, conventional. I wasn't being noble. I was pretty sure we were going to wipe. Imagine my surprise when we completed Thirsty River with no real problems. This is because one of the rangers politely took charge and used the resources he had. I was amazed.

Leadership overcomes.

While I admire this approach and think it's a good one, this kind of thing here really bugs me, as it happens a lot to me. I'm a ne/mo with high level death magic and healing prayers... and I get turned down for groups constantly, frankly because people don't really understand or appreciate death magic.

Nevermind that I can use undead as frontline healers (healing seed) and timed explosions (death nova + taste of death), but I've gone through several difficult missions as the primary healer and been successful. When my character is grouped with a healing monk, things go really smoothly and the parties are a lot of fun. Undead can do so much more than tank, and are great for protecting healers and spellcaster while the party targets a specific enemy. It's a shame that others don't understand the flexibility this kind of build affords a PvE group.

On average I'll spend upwards of 30 minutes just trying to find a group. I explain what I do, post creative LFG message, but it rarely helps. Imho, when the leader of a group has something in mind already, like requiring a healing monk, blood necro or nuker ele, and isn't open to the possibilites of unfamiliar classes, it robs their team of many valuable players and potentially enjoyable experiences. I encourage the approach here, yet would suggest being a little open minded to what's possible instead of sticking to what's familiar only.

If I'd have come with your team, even though you weren't looking for one like my class, we would have still been successful and had a lot of fun too. /sigh

ahahahhahahhahahahhahaahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhah ahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahaahaahahahhahahha hahahhahaahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahah hahahahahhahahahahahaahaahahahhahahhahahahhahaahah hahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahhaha hahahahaahaahahahhahahhahahahhahaahahhahahahhahaha hhahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahaahaah ahahhahahhahahahhahaahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahah ahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahaahaahahahhahahhaha hahhahaahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahha hahahahhahahahahahaahaahahahhahahhahahahhahaahahha hahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahaha hahahaaha

ps. you still will lose and suck.

People like you ehhh.

Secret: Pick not retards, pick people that don't suck.

Do not worry about exact roles and stupid crap like that, in the time it took you to sort out a "balanced team" you could have won 2-3 games and decided who to boot and who stays.

Your management is okay but in the end futile, if you want to spend 30 minutes gearing up form a guild. Otherwise just pickup and go, if you are good enough your team will win, if not you can kick / rearrange with players you know are good. (watching a pug play will increase awareness as you have to 1. Look at what is happening and who is doing what, and 2. Play.)

1) 10-15 minutes is too long

2) looking for exact class combos is pointless in a pug group. POINTLESS

3) focus on the goals, you need 3 decent or if you doubt, take 4 monks. Pickup characters that do not look like premades but are effective looking, nothing special unless you recognize a tag.

Other then that, focus on damage + Healing, PUGS are not specialty teams.

Eles are horrible in uncoordinated teams, ignore them along with anything but a trapper ranger, unless that ELE seems to be skilled in some way or has a nice combo (surge/orb)

Do not wait more then 2 minutes gathering a team.


Also, any decent guild will mow you down, no matter how good the PUG is in, unless it is a top guild PUG.

Wow... ok then. Hadn't got that far yet...

Fwiw, minions only attack what we target, and they don't attack until we do. If the master doesn't attack, they'll just stand there behind us and do nothing the entire battle. They don't go every-which-way, and at high levels are actually pretty smart in how they disperse. The only time I've ever had a minion pull unwanted aggro is when I raised them at the wrong moment and a group of hellhounds ran by while they were raising. Otherwise they stick with me... it's the master's positioning that dictates whether they pull aggro or not, and the corpse I'm closest to is the one that they will be created from - so blame it on the player not the minions.

If you watch them closely, you'll see that they pause before rushing in, and then go toward the most effective targets. I've watched them change course from an enemy that was close to death which didn't need them, and move toward the next most important target. If there is no other target in the immediate area based on my positioning, they will simply run back to me.

When I heal a party member, like a monk who's being pounded on, my minions will stand behind me until I attack... if I then target the creature that's attacking the monk, that's who they go for. They also will tend to follow targetted calls, unless the target is already being pounded on effectively and they aren't needed there.

High level bone horrors make excellent Healing Seeds when sent in with a couple of warriors. When Death Nova on them, I can track certain ones and use Taste of Death like a trigger switch at the right moment to blow them up and take out entire groups of enemies, or finish off an Ele's aoe spell that didn't take out the group completely.

While the minions are doing their thing, I'm free to sit in the back and cast healing seed and heal other on party members, backing up the monk and keeping them in particular alive, and using buffs on the minions to support the group and finish off foes more quickly. I'll use Heal Area to heal up the minions when they come back to me, so that they last longer and are more effective.

Imho, most people think death magic is just about raising minons that get in the way and scatter all over the place drawing aggro. That's like saying Memsers are only good for PvP, because interrupts are useless in PvE... both are an extremely narrow minded perspective of a very powerful and effective class when played properly.

Any profession can be effective, depending on the player behind it. There is no weak profession, only weak players. As with many professions, the low levels aren't representative of what the profession is capable of at higher levels and with good skill selection.

That entire post is one of the more effective illustrations of the OP's reasons for doing it the way he does, and why the Kick button is there in the first place. Let me take a guess... you skip all of the cinematics, and also think that taking time between encounters to recharge energy and heal is pointless...

:Kick:

I think the OP refers to PvE, not PvP.

PvE - Predictable, therefore easy to form a group to counter whatever is coming, beneficial to take some time.

PvP - Could be facing any sort of combination of players, so on that count you are right it could be pointless to take the time. [Disclaimer: Never done PvP - so I could be making false assumptions!]

Do you really need to have such an extensive preparation for PvE? I can't think of any situation besides underworld where you'd need to tell people what role to play and what spells to use in PvE.

As long as someone takes command and tells the group how to move, what to attack, and when to retreat, missions aren't really a problem. If somebody aggros a mob when he's not supposed to, just run away and let him die, then don't res him =P

I did not mean to turn this into a bash the death-necromancer thread

If I get a good message, I'm usually very open to listening to just about any build. A message that would have caught my ear: "I will raise a undead meat shield and keep you healed". Of the two death necromancers that applied, one said something about "owning with minions"; and the other one was a ne/wa and didn't answer my question: "how do you feed your minions". It was an honest question. If he didn't have a way to feed them, I was contemplating taking heal area -- if he can do a BiP or something else. But the fella didn't return my question. Of the group, only the ranger/necromancer seemed competent and had a good story to tell.

Thanks. Indeed, I learn something every day.

Interesting. But this means in many circumstances you really can't "attack" until the opposing group is close-enough not to aggro. My more typical experience with minions (or stupid warriors) goes something like this: There are two groups, one stationary and one a patrol (moving). We choose to target the moving group to pull them away from the stationary group. The tank rushes in (why??), and if the stationary group hasn't already engaged, when the tank follows a fleeing monster they do engage. Then half-way through the battle with the first group, a whole new group joins in the fight. And we die. This is why I never play with Stefan and Little Tom henchmen bots (besides the fact that Alesia has a crush on Stefan and always follows him into battle... but that's another story entirely).

That said, I suppose if you use fiends (range-attackers) instead of horrors this could work much better. Or, don't attack unless the opponent is safe for melee attackers to engage. It is just that most death necromancers don't get this -- and I'm tired of trying to explain it.

Agreed. Back to the main thread? Please cut/paste and start a separate thread on how to play a deathnecromancer effectively. I'd love to hear more about an effective minion-master build and strategy.

Ixtel: the only mission I can think of where that becomes a problem is Elona's Reach. To me that's one of the hardest missions to do with PUGs though, so yeah a more organized and well thought out approach to member selection would definately help there. However, for general missions I can't really think of one where you can't just leave the w/mo to die and continue on.

For missions starting with 4 people -- I'd start doing a little bit of coordinating and interviewing. For missions with 6 people, consistently successful PUGs will need some sort of interview and build coordination. For missions with 8 people, leadership and good recruiting are really quite mandatory for any reasonable chance of success. What I'm suggesting here is simply an elaboration on what other people already do, perhaps in a manner to explict for your given style. Regardless, there are many ways to skin the cat. In the end, you have to solve the "bad-apple" problem on your own terms -- or you will end up with many frustrating PUG experiences.

Let me put forth a straw-man to help elaborate.

Let's assume that your bad-apple rate in guild wars is 25% -- that is,
one in four random players will make the mission "unnecessarily difficult", if not a wholly unpleasant experience [drawing obscene things on maps does it for me]. Let's define a "good PUG" as one that doesn't have any bad-apples, and assume that you, yourself, are not a bad apple.

In pre-searing, your chances of a random PUG being "good" is 75% . In this case, the restart penalty is so low, that extensive preparation is clearly a waste of time. In post-searing, your chances of a random PUG being "good" drop quite a bit -- .75 ^ 3 = 42%. This isn't so bad, if there is a bad-apple, you can always whisper to the good people what district to regroup in. So while it may be irritating when you get a bad PUG, it is easily fixed. At Lion's Arch, things change significantly. Not only are the missions harder; but you have 6 people. Further, you have a .75^5 = 23% chance that a random PUG will be "good". Once you've ascended, the chances of a good random PUG are abysmal, .75^7 = 13%.

Now, let's suppose your "mission success" rate is based on a multiplier; 1.0 for average missions, 2.0 for easy missions, and .5 for hard missions. Let's assume Elona is a .5 -- so if you have 5 random people, your success rate will be .23 * .5 or 12% -- not too promising. More broadly, I suggest you spend as much time "preparing" as you need to increase your chances of having a successful mission into a range that is 'acceptable' to you.

The primary rationale for the interview process is first, and for most, to reduce the chances of a bad apple. Getting a team that is relatively ballanced is a very nice side-effect (but not a mandatory requirement).

P.S. I don't care about the actual multipliers or the bad-apple rate, they are there for illustration. It is the idea that is important: success is less likely the more random people you add to a team, especially if success depends on the team being coordinated. More likely, the rotten apple rate is 5% to 10%, and the "ok if happy" apples are the other 15%, but unhappy apples disconnect; so, without good leadership, bad apple = unhappy + rotten apple rate is 25%.

I admire the management techniques, very impressive. I'd like to point out, however, that sometimes the best skilled, most experienced PUG can be.... dull! This isn't a corporate job, it's a game, and while I love strategy, planning, teamwork and efficiency, I also appreciate fun and good humor.

Whether I'm leading or not, I try to let my sense of fun show in the "advertising." I usually wind up having a pretty fine time. Also, analytical skills may be productive but so can a keen sense of intuition. A good leader can deduce or intuit good players -- or both -- depends upon personal style.

Both approaches have this in common: both require actual communication and some measure of time. (I love your "take a break, we'll leave in X amount of time." I plan to try that one!)

I think it's a good sign that PUGs are starting to evolve. I can foresee a time when someone who just spams "W/R LFG" will be viewed as the dreaded "Noob."

Dalia

Wow great posts in this thread. Makes a big difference to some of the other crap on this forum . Thanks very much for starting it Ixchel. My only gripe is that you spelt "compliment" as "complement" - but besides that, it was quite educational.

I often take on the role as leader for PUGs, although I may not be as technically minded as some (i.e. memorising the few hundred skills that each of the six classes can use and what their effects are) I do try to use strategy and to get a balance of classes. If the players know what they're doing, you'll have no problems - although there's always one bad egg (like you mentioned with your first group where the most impatient one ended up leaving first - that happened to me too unfortunately ).

Very nice discussion.

I think also it is good to know how you yourself function in a group no matter what your character build or class. For instance I really don't like to lead. However I don't panic and I don't quit and I don't insult team members even when they make a grievous error. So I let my team members know how I play. Not like a quarterback, but more like an offensive lineman. Maybe a tight end. :-P

--Nokomis

Wow! I've never really considered personally interviewing each person, but thats a great idea.

I also used to get initmidated by people (especially monks) urging me to enter the mission quickly, but I'll make sure to take control of them if the situation is right and Im the established leader.

I would love to try this method of recruitment, but I've never led a party into the FoW before, despite all the times Ive gone, and I really dont know what some of the ppl in the group are doing...

If someone could post or PM builds on FoW,(what chars, what job is of each char ) for my enlightenment and the better organization of ToA, I would really appreciate it!