Feedback talk:User/Tennessee Ernie Ford/Coordinated questing

PUGs are terrible at coordination

I'm not sure about this one. Coordinated tactics sounds good in theory, but if there's one thing that PUGs are singularly terrible at, it's coordination. Some events where it's required might be nice, I guess, but more as the exception than the rule. -- Hong 10:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be all (and perhaps not even most) events. What I'm hoping is that requiring coordination will force people to step up as leaders, similarly to how it happens in battle or war. Some people (probably myself among them) will jump onto someone else's bandwagon, but others will find other ways around the issue. Perhaps they might set up training, so that officers would be able to split up quickly and take leadership roles in the different areas.

And yeah, even players that team together can be terrible at coordination: there's a couple folks in my guild who are decent leaders (especially in areas that they frequent), but they are terrible followers (leaving the group, deciding to follow their preferred path, acting as if they have the same build balance across the group, ...). Others are great if there's a strong leader calling targets, but on their own, they never change tactics unless there's some urgent drawing/pinging on the compass map.

Honestly, I'm not sure how it would work out in-game, but I think it could be enormous amounts of fun and lead to entirely new PvE gameplay dynamics. How successful it turns out would depend a lot on ANet's implementation, whether the rewards of coordination encourage the right type of cooperation, and how good people are at leading (and following). It might turn out terribly, but I'd love to see ANet try. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 10:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I'd like to see them try, too. Though I'm in favor of the move away from static quests/missions towards the dynamic event system, I fear it will become just too free-for-all. Walk along through the wilderness, get notified there's a DE nearby, go do you part to help with the fight, then move on. Though this addresses the weaknesses inhererant in the GW1 partying system, it does lack a certain coordinated cooperative feel. It just becomes, "Hey, look, a monster to fight! There's 10 other people that I don't know from Adam fighting it, too. But what the heck, I'll jump in to help out anyway before never seeing these 10 people again." A little too-PUG-ish, too-random. So I like the idea of having some DEs wherein a greater degree of coordination and cooperation are required to successfully complete the event. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 01:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, good points. I was thinking that these would work more along the lines of:

GW3 Perhaps: Hey, TEF, do you notice that the Trogs are starting to come out of the Warrens in full force?

TEF: [expletive deleted]! We better warn the town!

Hong: I have a better idea: let's organize a couple of groups and burn the Trogs out of the Warrens.

GW3 Perhaps: Great! But, we need to make sure that all of the Warrens are destroyed or they'll come back stronger than ever. TEF: you and Hong start recruiting ppls, I'll set up a command post. When we have at least 5 players to confront each Warren, we'll attack.

Aside from the cheap, comic-book dialogue (and the oversimplification), I can see events playing out like this across the map. Sometimes, dynamic events will take place too quickly for this type of coordination. Sometimes, people will rush into too soon. What I would hope is that, over time, people who rush in get burned (the community starts to learn how to recognize events-requiring-coordination) and the game allows some leeway. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine TEF using any expletives beyond "Shoot!" elix Omni 02:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Eh, sometimes I say, sheet or gosh or thank Kormir that Felix has joined the convo! — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)