What not to do when organizing a pick-up team...

I got a tell the other day asking if I want to be on a team.  No other information, just whether I want to team.  I had nothing going, so I figured what the heck.  I'm trying to get to 20 and a team mission will help me get there.  "Sure"

No sooner than I join and start heading for the train to zone, the guy starts bossing around someone he blind invited trying to get them to hurry up.  This person was finishing up their business at the store before heading in and isn't happy about how they're being treated.  "Hey, you blind invited me," he says to the guy, trying to get across that he doesn't owe this guy anything.  So they start arguing on the team channel, and the guy is really arrogant about it.  Acts like he's got a divine right to blind invite and how he's somehow justified in the way he's responding.

"Uh, bad vibes make for poor pick-up teams, folks," says I, immediately halting my forward progress.  Someone else agrees with me.  "Are we all on the same page here?"

The guy goes on about how he's kind of ruthless about getting his way, as if this is a desirable trait.

"That was the wrong answer.  Good luck."  And I dropped.  A few minutes later he apparently noticed I was gone and tried to reinvite.  I declined, with every intention of making him the first person ever on my ignore list, but he got the hint and left me alone.

Who in their right minds would want to team with someone that arrogant?  Even taking into account that this is on Virtue and the guy might be 'role-playing', it's way over the top.  I'd post the 'hero' name as a public service, but I don't quite remember it today.

So, what's your philosophy on pick-up teams?  I've had good ones and bad ones, and that one was destined for disaster before I even got a look at the mission door.  When do you decide it's time to bail?

I avoid pick-up groups as a general rule.  There have been rare exceptions.  When I receive a private tell from someone I don't know, that gives a good description of what he's looking to do, I may be willing to team up.

Example:  "Hi there - can you help me out?  A level 45 Mako is kicking my butt and I need to finish this mission."

Or: "Interested in running the second respec mission?"

But frankly, I tend to be a bit paranoid about pick-up groups.  So much so that I often set my Team Window on "Not Accepting Invites" just to avoid the hassle.

I'll usually give pickups a shot if I'm available - that's how we met peeps like Camma, Beau, Burnie and Topsicle after all....

It's also how we met Flim, Erik and Jamie.

Most of my gaming has been through pickups as TPE is too low level to team up with most established FR characters and he's just not built to solo (I've kept him true to concept in that regard).  Generally speaking these groups tend to be just all about bashing things and getting missions done and they're reasonably friendly when they do communicate.  I hear (or rather read) that they might be better fun on Virtue.

Overall no complaints, although I did have a right bunch of muppets yesterday.

every friend and contact I've made in the game, other than the real life friends who play(ed) with me, have come from PUG's.

the key, for me anyway, is to communicate before accepting the invite. I ask what their objective is (missions or just destroying anything in the way), verify my AT/powers (Storm/Rad def.. learned the hard way after lots of boots for not being EMP), ask the difficulty level they are running, and ask how long they have been running and plan to keep running.

the people worth grouping with will respond, the others won't.

I almost never accept blind invites. I'll accept invites from people I know, occasionally people I can actually see, or sometimes invites that give a certain amount of information as to what's going on. I tend to join groups that ask for my help with something I think I can help with (there was a time when a large portion of my tiem in-game was spent helping various groups against the Psychic Clockwork King... then I ended up completely outleveling that mission before I could get it myself...) On the other hand, I'll never accept a blind invite if I find it staring me in the face as soon as I log into the game. I want to take a little time to figure out exactly what I want to do before teaming, generally. I also never join groups that tell me they're engaged in activities that really don't interest me- PLing groups, for example- or when I don't like the tone of the invite- "Join us!"- or when there's no associated "tell", just an invite, or when I'm in the middle of something (unless it sounds like the people involved really need help, and I think I can provide what they need), or if they're specifically asking for a "healer", or some specific power set (not really interested in playing that way- a specific AT is a different matter, although even then, I tend to be a little reluctant, just because many of my characters have weird builds, and may not be what the team thinks they're getting, exactly...).

Frankly, I've had some great experiences with PUGs, and some aweful experiences. Since I usually enjoy soloing, and can usually find a team from this community to join if I really don't want to solo, I rarely feel I need a PUG, but as an occasional change of pace, they can add something to the game (or give me horrible nightmares... Whichever...).

I PUG at low levels more readily than at high levels.  At low levels, even if the PUG sucks you still progress, as opposed to gaining debt from their stupidity.

Quote from: Tortuga on May 15, 2007, 07:30:21 PM
I PUG at low levels more readily than at high levels.  At low levels, even if the PUG sucks you still progress, as opposed to gaining debt from their stupidity.

On the other hand, the best PUG experiences I've ever had have all been at higher levels...

Pre-10 I'll accept just about anything, since I'm just gorging on XP. My mantra after that is "Keep the chances of a bad PUG as low as possible".  I've found a few practices that help me accomplish this:

Post-10 I accept no blind invites. The cost/benefit ratio of bad-to-good groups is just too lousy. I will join a team that sends an informative tell, or replies respectfully if I need more info about what they're up to.

If I want a team and can't find FR peeps to team with, however, my first preference is to form my own PUG.  These always tend to be my best PUG experiences, so the work is well worth it.

EC

I see a lot of whining about PUGs, but in my experience, there are very few PUGs that aren't in some way salvageable. Really, the only problem with 90% of them is that nobody's in charge. There's nobody figuring out what the team can handle and making sure it gets done, so you get teams hitting missions way above their heads, or sweeping through them in a really inefficient manner, resulting in team wipes.

Yes, I do end up on a lot of PUGs which aren't performing so well. But the vast majority of the time, all they require is me to speak up and act like I'm in charge, and they start to click. If we have a good tank and stupid support people, I tell the support people to hold back and wait for the herd. If we're weak on aggro management, I take charge of the pulling. Yes, sometimes I have to bail-- if the team has people with a random assortment of levels across a 5-point spread, it's bad news. If there's already a vocal leader, but he's a complete idiot, there's very little I can do. But these situations are rare, and as long as you're willing to put in some effort to organize the team's efforts, I think just about any PUG is salvageable.

Quote from: captainspud on May 15, 2007, 09:45:36 PM
I see a lot of whining about PUGs, but in my experience, there are very few PUGs that aren't in some way salvageable. Really, the only problem with 90% of them is that nobody's in charge. There's nobody figuring out what the team can handle and making sure it gets done, so you get teams hitting missions way above their heads, or sweeping through them in a really inefficient manner, resulting in team wipes.

Yes, I do end up on a lot of PUGs which aren't performing so well. But the vast majority of the time, all they require is me to speak up and act like I'm in charge, and they start to click. If we have a good tank and stupid support people, I tell the support people to hold back and wait for the herd. If we're weak on aggro management, I take charge of the pulling. Yes, sometimes I have to bail-- if the team has people with a random assortment of levels across a 5-point spread, it's bad news. If there's already a vocal leader, but he's a complete idiot, there's very little I can do. But these situations are rare, and as long as you're willing to put in some effort to organize the team's efforts, I think just about any PUG is salvageable.

It's funny- myexperiences have been very different. The vast majority of bad PUG experiences I've had specifically involved the "there's already a vocal leader, but he's a complete idiot" kind of situation.

I've only been in one PuG (lol, I've only been playing for 2 days) but it was good. It was my scrapper, a controller and a higher level blaster. We just cleared our way through the hollows killing loads of stuff and leveling up. Although we didn't speak much we did have some jokes and I felt we worked well together. It wasn't quite a blind invite as I was in the same area as them jst clearing mobs. I got into a sticky situation when these two guys swooped in and saved me, the team invite kind of made sense.

In terms of leadership no one was really in charge because we just ran from mob to mob burning and hitting stuff ;)

Don't get me wrong, most of the teaming I do winds up being invited to pick-up groups and I've had some great experiences.  Even so-so groups usually get smarter after the first wipe and I try not to be part of the wipe when it happens.

I find, however, that 'speaking up' only works with a tactically-minded group.  A lot of times by the time I can start typing a suggestion some over-eager scrapper or blaster is already pulling a mob down on top of us.

I had another experience recently where the team had a blapper with a death wish.  He didn't seem to care how many times he died, or whether he took any other players with him.  Most everyone else dropped out.  Me, I decided I could still contribute but only by staying invisible, healing, and confusing and occasionally attacking when I thought I could get away with it without pulling too much aggro.  It worked.  The other two guys thought I was standing around doing a lot of nothing, until I explained it to them later.

My PUG experiences run the full gamut.  I've been on PUG teams that clicked like well-oiled machines, and I've been on PUGs where everyone was completely clueless and seemed to almost be actively working against each other.  Having accepted an invite, however, I'll always try to stick out at least one mission with any team.

As a rule, I never accept a blind invite, and I never answer any tell that contains the words "farm", "bridge", or "PL".  I also ignore any tell that asks me if I'm a specific build or have a specific power.  I'm sorry guy, but I am not "auditioning" to be on your freakin' team.  Besides, players who think they need a specific build or power to succeed in this game are not good players.  I try to at least answer every other tell I get, even if it's just to say "Sorry, I can't team right now".  I find I'm more likely to accept an invite if someone says they need help with something, as opposed to just asking for team.  If I have time, I will always agree to help someone with an "I need to click two glowies at the same time" task.

One of the biggest problems I find with low-level PUGs is when players on new alts think they can play the game the same way they did with their recently levelled 50s.  The truth is, a Tank in the teens can not herd, grab, and hold aggro the way a lvl 32+ tank can.  Low level scrappers are tissue thin.  Low level blasters do not have a suite of devastating AOE attacks.  And no one has the Endurance to continually use the even the powers they do have.  So if I join a lvl 12 or so PUG, and see they're doing Frostfire on Invincible with an 8-man team, and the leader expects to "tank and spank" the way a lvl 50 team operates... I quickly start searching for an excuse to bail.

-BG

Quote from: Bugbear on May 16, 2007, 11:26:24 AMAs a rule, I never accept a blind invite, and I never answer any tell that contains the words "farm", "bridge", or "PL".  I also ignore any tell that asks me if I'm a specific build or have a specific power.  I'm sorry guy, but I am not "auditioning" to be on your freakin' team.  Besides, players who think they need a specific build or power to succeed in this game are not good players.  I try to at least answer every other tell I get, even if it's just to say "Sorry, I can't team right now".  I find I'm more likely to accept an invite if someone says they need help with something, as opposed to just asking for team.  If I have time, I will always agree to help someone with an "I need to click two glowies at the same time" task.

Heh... You have pretty much the exact same general PUG rules I do... Every word of that paragraph would apply to me, too.

Quote from: Bugbear on May 16, 2007, 11:26:24 AM
Besides, players who think they need a specific build or power to succeed in this game are not good players. 

I agree with everything else you said, BG.  I don't think it's wrong to try to build a group with complimentary abilities, though.  Tanks and scrappers -do- generally do better with some type of healer around to offset the amount of damage they're taking, for example.  And I've seen discussions on this very board about assembling teams for such-and-such a mission based around a compliment of powers/builds.

Yeah, really good players who understand their strengths and weaknesses and the strengths and weaknesses of their teammates can handle pretty much anything.  But I can't fault folks for trying to leverage synergies in the game, and I can't condemn newbies for thinking they need a 'healer' on every mission.

I seem to have incredible luck with PUG's. However, I do have the rule to never ,ever respond to :

"ru heeler"

"ru kin"

"canumentor"

"Hollowsmish easyxp"

and such other  examples of stupidity.

And when I hit a PUG if all the names are :

BiG HiTTeR

JeDI5133

HeLLsANGel

xxxxBLACKULAxxxxx

NOT Wolverine

etc etc etc

I tend to quit, go in deep and hide in my SG base until such time as I deem it safe.

the people who I have good PUG experiences with, I add to my friends list and try and keep in touch with them, even if only to say hi. I'm ever hopeful lightning will strike a few dozen times in the same spot ;)

Quote from: BlueBard on May 16, 2007, 11:46:31 AM

Quote from: Bugbear on May 16, 2007, 11:26:24 AM
Besides, players who think they need a specific build or power to succeed in this game are not good players. 

I agree with everything else you said, BG.  I don't think it's wrong to try to build a group with complimentary abilities, though.  Tanks and scrappers -do- generally do better with some type of healer around to offset the amount of damage they're taking, for example.  And I've seen discussions on this very board about assembling teams for such-and-such a mission based around a compliment of powers/builds.

Yeah, really good players who understand their strengths and weaknesses and the strengths and weaknesses of their teammates can handle pretty much anything.  But I can't fault folks for trying to leverage synergies in the game, and I can't condemn newbies for thinking they need a 'healer' on every mission.

I have to disagree with this. Tanks and scrappers do better with any kind of defender- whether they heal, decrease the amount of damage you take, or increase your damage output, for most missions, doesn't make that much difference in terms of effectiveness.

Wanting or needing a specific AT is okay.  The game is designed around a balance of ATs.

Wanting or needing a specific build within that AT shows that you either don't understand the game, or that you have no interest in adapting your play to different styles.

So yes, "We need a tank" or "We need damage" or "We need support" are all fine.  It's when they insist that a particular powerset is neccessary that flags go up.

Note that I completed an STF on a team with a Fire Tank and no rads.  Good play trumps all other considerations.

-BG

Quote from: BlueBard on May 16, 2007, 11:46:31 AM

Quote from: Bugbear on May 16, 2007, 11:26:24 AM
Besides, players who think they need a specific build or power to succeed in this game are not good players. 

I agree with everything else you said, BG.  I don't think it's wrong to try to build a group with complimentary abilities, though.  Tanks and scrappers -do- generally do better with some type of healer around to offset the amount of damage they're taking, for example. 

Typically debuff based (Dark Miasma, Radiation Emission) sets are the best option to mitigate incoming damage by reducing accuracy and damage as well as reducing enemy's defenses and resistances allowing them to be subdued faster.  Pure buff sets (Force Field) tend to mitigate incoming damage similarly but most lack the ability to subdue foes quickly.  This means that slightly more damage will be taken than debuff sets because the enemy is surviving longer.  Healing is the worst way to mitigate damage.  Teamates will constantly take damage and be at the mercy of the healer's reactions.  This is not to say healing doesn't have it's time and place, it's more of a last resort after the other options have been breached. 

BTW, the empathy power most desired by teamates isn't a heal....it's fortitude (a defense/to hit buff), don't let the n00bs know.

Quote from: Bugbear on May 16, 2007, 03:26:47 PM
Wanting or needing a specific AT is okay.  The game is designed around a balance of ATs.

Wanting or needing a specific build within that AT shows that you either don't understand the game, or that you have no interest in adapting your play to different styles.

So yes, "We need a tank" or "We need damage" or "We need support" are all fine.  It's when they insist that a particular powerset is neccessary that flags go up.

Note that I completed an STF on a team with a Fire Tank and no rads.  Good play trumps all other considerations.

-BG

Except that balance breaks down for the final mission of the LRSF villainside.  Try to find a dominator (mind/ maybe) or stalker that that isn't taking a pity spot.  No matter how well played, you'll need a stable of debuffers, buffers and healers as well as an effective aggro manager with the way the LRSF is currently constituted.  Well played and even some less than well played suped up teams can beat the LRSF, whereas a well played balanced team will struggle until it reaches it ultimate failure in the last mission.

Yes, but the LRSF is one, single example of a horribly designed mission. There isn't even any point bringing it up in these conversations, as the rules that apply in the rest of the game don't apply to the LRSF.

Quote from: Ephemeris on May 16, 2007, 04:06:01 PM

Quote from: Bugbear on May 16, 2007, 03:26:47 PM
Wanting or needing a specific AT is okay.  The game is designed around a balance of ATs.

Wanting or needing a specific build within that AT shows that you either don't understand the game, or that you have no interest in adapting your play to different styles.

So yes, "We need a tank" or "We need damage" or "We need support" are all fine.  It's when they insist that a particular powerset is neccessary that flags go up.

Note that I completed an STF on a team with a Fire Tank and no rads.  Good play trumps all other considerations.

-BG

Except that balance breaks down for the final mission of the LRSF villainside.  Try to find a dominator (mind/ maybe) or stalker that that isn't taking a pity spot.  No matter how well played, you'll need a stable of debuffers, buffers and healers as well as an effective aggro manager with the way the LRSF is currently constituted.  Well played and even some less than well played suped up teams can beat the LRSF, whereas a well played balanced team will struggle until it reaches it ultimate failure in the last mission.

Everything I said about AT balance applies to CoH only.  The original five ATs in CoH were designed to complement each other, each specializing in different roles (with some crossover).  If you have a cross-section of ATs, then you probably have a workable team.

In CoV, the ATs don't complement each other as obviously.  Corruptors and Brutes are favoured because their roles are the most easily understood by the most players.  Stalkers seem to have a clear role, but my experience is that many players of Stalkers have no idea how to integrate their play into a team situation.  Frankly, I'm not sure myself how Stalkers and Brutes are supposed to co-exist on the same team.

-BG

Quote from: Bugbear on May 17, 2007, 02:41:26 AM

Everything I said about AT balance applies to CoH only.  The original five ATs in CoH were designed to complement each other, each specializing in different roles (with some crossover).  If you have a cross-section of ATs, then you probably have a workable team.

In CoV, the ATs don't complement each other as obviously.  Corruptors and Brutes are favoured because their roles are the most easily understood by the most players.  Stalkers seem to have a clear role, but my experience is that many players of Stalkers have no idea how to integrate their play into a team situation.  Frankly, I'm not sure myself how Stalkers and Brutes are supposed to co-exist on the same team.

-BG

Brutes have some trouble, for different reasons, teaming with Masterminds, too...

It seems to me that the heroic ATs are geared more, as a group, toward team play (with Scrappers being the best soloers), while the villainous ATs seem to be built more for solo play (with Corruptors beings the best teamers- and maybe Dominators, I admit I haven't had as much experience playing those). Brutes, Masterminds, and Stalkers all solo extremely well, certainly. Of course, Masterminds can also team pretty well, although in my experience it requires a very different play style than soloing- but then, that's probably true of pretty much all ATs, hero or villain, at least to an extent.

Another big difference between heroic ATs and villainous ATs has to do with the special abilities. The heroic ATs originally had no AT-speicific special abilities- these were added over the course of several patches as an afterthought, starting with the scrapper critical hit ability. The villainous ATs, on the other hand, were mostly designed around their special abilities- Stalkers are probably the most extreme example, but it's really true of all of them. You'd think that would have allowed the devs to balance things better...