Shroud PUG experiment - First 11, Hard

[sirgog]

Wanted to try something out. Posted "Hard, Speedrun, people that die to blades will be publicly mocked ". Took the first 11 to hit the LFM (2 were guildies) with absolutely no screening.

32 minute completion, no deaths (except the storyline ones).


Second run, also Hard, also no screening. This one wasn't as speedy (47 minutes), and had 6 deaths. One to a fireball in part 4, two to Harry's attacks in part 5, and three to combinations of blades and Harry during periods that blades came to us in part 5. The first timer did not die.


Was planning a third but tech issues at my end prevented it.


Group composition was something like 3 divines, 2 arcanes, 1 archer, 6 melee each time.
So yep, the Shroud PUG is alive and well, even on Hard.


Oh and Geissel, a guildie, pulled a large scale in each of the two part 5 chests. You can send him hate mail - in the form of coal or festivult twigs - if you are on Khyber and envious. I encourage it.

[azmodeus1]

"hard" and "speedrun" attracts the more skilled and geared players...

for a real experiment, do a shroud in 3 days saying "normal, first timers welcome, singing kumbaya at the end."

...and lets compare the results!

[sirgog]

"hard" and "speedrun" attracts the more skilled and geared players...

for a real experiment, do a shroud in 3 days saying "normal, first timers welcome, singing kumbaya at the end."

...and lets compare the results!

I'd say the first run had a fair number of geared vets. The second one had several people that had only completed Normal since U12, and one person that hadn't run Shroud and had ~370hp, plus another with 315hp or so. "Hard Run #2 of 3" attracts people that aren't confident they can handle Hard, as it indicates you've already had a successful run.

The singing idea though... Karaoke Shroud anyone? (Whenever you die, you have to take a drink, then sing a line of some awful song)

[cpito]

May I suggest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQsjAbZDx-4

[Mrmorphling]

This experiment matches my experience too on a different server; i joined and lead quite a few shroud hard where the only 'screening' applied was 2+ divines and success rate was 100% (we are talking about 8/9 completions overall as i'm not a die hard shroud fan),

[Vallin]

I am not sure if this is a valid experiment because Shroud runs posted by certain people or by certain guilds are likely to attract very different PUGgers.

I think the absolute test would be to have an anonymous lfm and all anonymous applicants. I'm not sure if you can post an LFM if you are anonymous - I never tried. THAT would be the true test of whether or not the Shroud PUG was dead. I wonder if your results would be different.

Vallin.

[cpito]

I am not sure if this is a valid experiment because Shroud runs posted by certain people or by certain guilds are likely to attract very different PUGgers.

So it's invalid because birds of a feather flock together? I suppose you have a valid point but it just seems silly that a reputation for getting the job done going to so skew the results in your view.

I'm not sure if you can post an LFM if you are anonymous

You can. Your name will appear on the LFM panel but not the who tab.

[Raithe]

So yep, the Shroud PUG is alive and well, even on Hard.

As someone who has about 350 Shroud completions, ALL of them PUG, I can tell you with a bit more certainty than your "experiment" that the Shroud on Hard PUG was NEVER alive and well. That was true before they messed with bladestorm damage. Most PUGs ran out of cleric juice before they could whittle a hard Harry down, which meant death by meteor swarm and gnoll regeneration. Part 4 is always the issue. I've never had any Shroud fail on part 5, and if they failed on Part 2 it was just due to a complete lack of kill mechanic comprehension combined with newish player un-dominance.

What the bladestorm change DID do was make Shroud runs for experienced players more prone to griefing, more dependent on ranged damage than it already was, and highly dependent on lag. The elite bladestorms are as comicly stupid as many of the elite traps in the game. They are, by far, the most threatening aspect of the quest, and yesterday on elite I saw a 700 hit point fighter go from nearly full to dead in a matter of about 1.5 seconds, because he got caught in a random flurry of bladestorms in Part 3. The coding for determining when a bladestorm gets to apply damage is horrible, and running anything other than completely perpendicular to a bladestorm's path can make you take a TON of hits in a very, very short time.

I just wonder what fool developer thinks that this stuff is fun. I've had completions since the change (about 10), but none of those had just 12 deaths involved. I'm starting to look for heavy ranged/caster parties now, just like I subconciously did back when the level cap was 16.

Oh, and yesterday on elite I watched a 500 hit point cleric (the only cleric in the party) die to a bladestorm spawning on top of her while she was typing in party chat. It killed her right as she finished her one-line epitaph. It happened so fast that my bard with quicken wound up healing himself instead of the cleric, even though I targetted and pressed the cure crit button ('V') about as fast as humanly possible.

[tinyelvis]

Though you didnt mention it, I am guessing you acted as a leader. A good leader can pull a Pug through most any quest or raid. A poorly led group, in contrast, will often fail. Many whiners on the forum are victims of poor leadership. Be it someone else or, as often is common, themselves. Your blade comment was quite clever. It shows you as the leader know how PUGs often fail. Plus it will, in a light way, help focus the party to remember to be extra careful around blades.

There are many tells for poor leadership. Lack of communication, flash to anger issues, irrelevant requests in LFM.... However, here is one I often avoid knowing a poor leader is usually present.

"Shroud hard, know your role."

This often means the group leader doesn't. My question for the above poster, "Are you leading most of these failed shroud runs?"

[munificence]

I've also noticed that people mostly seem to self screen these days. If I post or join a hard or elite LFM for Shroud, usually the people that also opt in are fairly well geared, familiar with the raid, and have completed it on that difficulty before. Similarly, if I post an LFM for "elite BB streak," I usually get TRs and experienced players rather than first lifers unfamiliar with the quest.

[Urjak]

I have tried several hard pug shroud runs with just taking the first 11 (some I lead myself, some I joined) they all failed. PUGS on the other hand that were composed of a few channel / guild ppl that new each other and just filled up the remaining spots ... they always succeeded

[taurean430]

May I point out that the use of your terms 'Hard, Speedrun, people that die to blades will be publicly mocked ' attract more knowledgeable players and intimidate the less experienced? It's very unlikely that you attracted a true pug experience based on this. I know that I, and many others, will use specific terms in lfm posting that by default dissuade the less experienced.

To get a true sample, it may require simply posting an lfm without these things. Then take the first 11. It's much more likely that you will have a different experience.

[Viisari]

I am not sure if this is a valid experiment because Shroud runs posted by certain people or by certain guilds are likely to attract very different PUGgers.

I've joined a hard shroud group that was posted by a person I know to be a clueless newbie. It completed rather easily. I think I've completed 3 or 4 hard shrouds after U12, every single one of them was a random LFM I joined.

There are now more hard shroud pugs being completed than ever before for as long as I've been playing this game.

[Raithe]

A good leader can pull a Pug through most any quest or raid. A poorly led group, in contrast, will often fail.

I've heard this spouted around all the time in real life, too, and it is just as false in reality as it is in just-for-fun fantasy. Good leaders don't win quests and make projects successful. It's simply good workers that do. People who know the requirements for success and are capable of executing.

Most of the failed quests I mentioned (on hard, typically) had very good "leaders" (not me) who effectively communicated the requirements for success and executed very well themselves. The problem wasn't with the communication or supposed lack of "leadership," it was simply a problem of too many people in the group who didn't listen, and who for the most part were just there to prove they can get a kill or two (and maybe pull a large devil scale, which would make their day). DDO is also the only game I've ever played more than briefly where I can look back on a failed quest and say "well, that couldn't really have been executed any better." Examples:

1) The dragon in elite "Prey on the Hunter" gets caught in the tunnel with Kaljarne and bb-spamming frost giant clerics. He dies before there is any real way to sort out the mess (say, because the maze happened to be the long way in both sections). The problem is usually easily fixed by simply re-running the quest.

2) Coyle gets hit with a stealthed Thraak hound breath, back before he could be healed and/or sedated. (Thraak hounds initially run stealthed and are hard to see even if you have the spot, and Coyle's actions were barely predictable and never controllable).

3) Many other instances of nearly-flawless execution where a lone griefer can make the quest fail. (Falling off in the old VoN 2, someone killing a venerated in "Faithful Departed," someone picking up the stones in "Hound of Xoriat", etc.)

There wouldn't be much of a problem here if DDO didn't have such a good game engine and wasn't based on the very entertaining and familiar D&D ruleset. It could just fail miserably and we could all divert our attention to better designed alternatives. The problem is that it does have a superb game engine, with the best physics I've ever encountered in an MMO, and is based on the D&D ruleset. It makes it hard to let it go, even though the game design is utterly poor (though I would find it much easier if I didn't run with my own set of rules addendums).

I have completed several Shrouds (actually picked up two 20th rewards lists) since the recent changes, some of them on hard. The changes don't make the Shroud any more interesting than it was (which was already low), however, and actually make it less appealing for me. I run hard and elite for the challenge, not for the LDS's (I could make a tier 3 something anytime I wanted to keep the shards in inventory), and just like the old Eastern Excavation 3, the current state of the Shroud makes me want to avoid it for the most part.

[LordMond63]

I think I'd have to agree that the description you placed in your LFM, while of good intent, played absolute Hades with the validity of your experiment because it prejudiced the pool of potential groupmates.

When I see a "know your role" or "have a clue" LFM, I hesitate to join now because too often it means "I hope you know what you're doing because I (the leader- or at least the person assembling the group) do not." By the same token, "speed runs" or "zergs" attract a certain type of player and repel certain other types.

Meanwhile, on Orien, the number of Shroud PuGs- indeed, the number of Shroud runs overall- are still down dramatically since the release of U-12. There are any number of reasons for this but to exclude the unnecessary (in my opinion) changes made to Shroud as being, if not THE primary reason at least among the most impactful reasons, is simply to deny reality.

[tinyelvis]

Since the update, I have pugged all shrouds. Most of the time I lead. I have never been in a group that fails on normal. In hard groups I join or lead, at least 80% succeed. Elite, perhaps 50%, maybe a little less.

I think shrouds are better designed now than ever before. For the first time in DDO history, hard LFMs are actually often advertised and there is a good reason for doing them. So, why is there a difference in experience between me and other players.

1. I avoid groups that look poorly led.
2. When I lead a group, I run it at a level appropriate to the skill and classes present.

Even easy raids like shroud require a modicum of leadership. If you are having trouble with the shroud now and dont know why, my suggestion is to take a critical look at yourself and your performance. You are probably part of the problem. Once you solve that issue, it's a simple matter to pass your experience on to others who may need it.

Here is a first step tip. Even on the highest difficulty level, the blades do but 90 points a hit. Surely you have more hitpoints than that. If so, then don't do things that let let blades hit you multiple times.

[Hafeal]

Wanted to try something out. Posted "Hard, Speedrun, people that die to blades will be publicly mocked ". Took the first 11 to hit the LFM (2 were guildies) with absolutely no screening.

... and this indicates what exactly? That you managed to attarct experienced players with decent gear running Shroud for the 800th time even though you didn't myDDO them? I run my Shrouds with no screening and never have. Guild, non-Guild.

My last run had a twit wizard spamming cometfall [edit: meant meteor swarm] as we zoned in to pt 4 - despite 8 voices and party type telling the player not to do that - killed 4 devils at once, lone healer dies, we wipe; wizard on 11 squelch lists; 45 mins of 11 other player's time wasted. Is that indicative of anything? No more than your expereince.

Raithe - good posts, +1, fully agree.


P.S. Well, my experience is indicative of one thing, before the last mod, the blades wouldn't have killed my healer. /-)

[Vallin]

So it's invalid because birds of a feather flock together? I suppose you have a valid point but it just seems silly that a reputation for getting the job done going to so skew the results in your view.

I DO think that a reputation for getting the job done will skew the results.

I believe that so strongly that my #1 methodology for deciding to join groups is to look for guild tags and to look for people I know. I often only join when I know the guild or when I know the person running it.

When I join in a situation that I don't know the person/guild, I have lower expectations and I only do this when I know I don't mind the possibility of failing or when I am interested in helping others learn a quest if things go bad.

I thought that my 'method' was rather common, actually. I would be surprised if this was not a common method for 'screening' without the explicit use of MyDDO.

Vallin.

[Torkzed]

I've heard this spouted around all the time in real life, too, and it is just as false in reality as it is in just-for-fun fantasy. Good leaders don't win quests and make projects successful. It's simply good workers that do. People who know the requirements for success and are capable of executing.

The value of good leadership is undeniable. I would agree that if you are fortunate enough to have a team of people who all know what they are doing in a predictable exercise (like a quest that is always the same), then leadership is less important. However, if you have merely competent people who are unfamiliar with the quest, a good leader can be the difference between success and failure. Since this is far more likely in a PUG situation, good leadership is important in a PUG. If there were quests that had a random element that required adapting on the fly, leadership would be very important in these situations as well.

[taurean430]

I think he meant meteor swarm...