A

[Chaba.5410]

3 hours ago, Asum.4960 said:

GW2 players, due to the core experience never requiring grouping of any kind, generally already struggle with severe built up anxiety over grouping through lack of exposure - the last thing the game needs is more hurdles limiting players who want to step up from doing so by making it a conscious investment that has to be considered.

Surely you don't mean to IGNORE core group content like dungeons and fractals?  Players used to do that content JUST FINE with basic party functions.  They even typed in party chat to organize themselves and bring the right builds and classes.  And that's even before the LFG tool existed (released a whole year after launch).  Players used to stand around the dungeon entrances looking for groups to party with.

If we want to talk about what are "basic functions" for grouping, players have to seriously ask themselves why the squad functions being asked for here were missing from the game until 3 years after launch if they were so basic.  Well, we already know the answer: they were missing because they were not necessary to do the content.  They still aren't.

As for the last thing the game needs, that IMHO would be attempting to solve everyone's personal social anxiety issues.  Games are not the correct venue to do that.  Devs can remove all the hurdles possible and still not solve world hunger.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Parasite.5389]

21 hours ago, Albi.7250 said:

Right no The Average Player can't play Strike Missions correctly without paying 300g. For the People who are not in the Know: If you don't have a Commander Tag, you can't group people into sub-groups as Squad-Leader. Player however can moves themselves into Sub-groups, which is rather archaic and unsuited for Pug-able entry level content. Especially the missing Ready-Check is ridiculous, like I tripled checked the wiki to make sure it is really missing. The Ready-Check is the bar minimum in group communication to properly conduct a Strike. Is the ready function really so complicated that only the rich and experienced player are able to used its power responsible? Do i and other casual Player really need to:
"ready?
:r
:r
:R

:R

:r

:R

:R

:+

:r"

each time we wanna kill the Kodans.

 

If you wanna do Strikes with random People, the intuitive way would be: One Group leader opens a Squad in Lfg, puts the people who join in the two Sub-Groups(which is now relevant with the recent changes to Boons) and makes a Ready-Check so the group can move onto the boss as a unit and not a staggered Mess.

 

I DO NOT WANT a Commander-Tag. I don't want to lead Meta-Events and i sure as Hell don't want to lead some WvW-zerg. I just want basic group function when i go into Strikes without paying 300G for a Tag i have not desire to own. I want to be clear about that, cause I read a similar Post a while ago.

 

As a lot of Strikes are Baby' s first 10 Man Content in Difficulty and accessibility, there shouldn't be a 10 Hour time investment or 20 Bucks on Top of the normal gear requirements.

EDIT:
As a lot of people in the Forums (a.k.a. Veteran Player) are convinced the Ready-Check is indeed a Tool that needs to be earned or payed for, are there any suggestions or ideas for an alternative?
The Amount of Players who could use a Ready-Check in Strikes(or other PvE Content for that Matter) vastly outnumber the People who have use for the Full-Power Commander-Tag. Expecting them to pay 300g seems highly overpriced if a Person doesn't want All its features.

this doesn't sound like an issue over 300g, this sounds more like a problem of 'not wanting to have any sort of social interaction with other players', you just want people to push a button and go, how about talking to your squad members, y'know, the other human beings

[Asum.4960]

1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Surely you don't mean to IGNORE core group content like dungeons and fractals?  Players used to do that content JUST FINE with basic party functions.  They even typed in party chat to organize themselves and bring the right builds and classes.  And that's even before the LFG tool existed (released a whole year after launch).  Players used to stand around the dungeon entrances looking for groups to party with.

If we want to talk about what are "basic functions" for grouping, players have to seriously ask themselves why the squad functions being asked for here were missing from the game until 3 years after launch if they were so basic.  Well, we already know the answer: they were missing because they were not necessary to do the content.  They still aren't.

And you cut out the literal opening to my post in which I said, and I quote: 

Quote

While these functions are not required

just to make the point that these functions are not required? 

 

I'm not ignoring anything. What you are though is that times are changing, and with that culture and expectations. 

It's fine if people used to stand in front of Dungeon entrances spamming group requests in chat, but that's not where the game is at these days, and you'd probably stand there for quite a while. 

 

It's without question harder to get together and organise squads without some of the tag functionality. Does grouping being more bothersome when much of the functionality to fix it already exists in the game benefit the game, it's player's and Anet or not? 

 

The answer is pretty clear, and exactly why these features were added over time. Not because they are necessary, but because they improve the accessibility of the content in question - and since their introduction in many ways have become an expectation.

 

Quote

As for the last thing the game needs, that IMHO would be attempting to solve everyone's personal social anxiety issues.  Games are not the correct venue to do that.

You misunderstand my point. I'm not asking Anet to cure general or social anxiety disorders in it's players (don't be ridiculous), I'm pointing out that 99% of the content in game not requiring grouping whatsoever builds up anxieties in players for when then suddenly faced with the need for it the few niches where the game does require it.

It's therefor paramount to then make that experience there as frictionless as can be (if not fixing the issue of lack of exposure/normalisation of grouping in the first place).

 

People do expect sub-group management in 10-player content, they do expect ready checks. Player's are more reluctant to join tag-less squads. 

I can guarantee you plenty players sit around looking at an either empty or not catering to them LFG's and feel the impulse to make their own group, but then shy away because they don't have a commander tag and it's functionality and are not willing to pay a 300g premium to test stepping up to the plate. That's an entirely unnecessary extra hurdle to an already for many taxing to take up responsibility - actively harming the accessibility, and therefor growth, of such content without greater counter benefit. 

 

I'd love for players to actively talk again instead, looking for groups, sorting themselves out in squads, etc., but I don't see that happening unless GW2 shifts a lot of it's philosophy towards more frequent required grouping and socialisation of it's playerbase - and suggesting that won't make you many friends in this community. 

So solutions to lessen that burden on those who are willing to step up by giving them the tools to do so more effectively more readily, is imo welcome.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Asum.4960

[SlayerXX.7138]

a

Edited November 18, 2023 by SlayerXX.7138

[mythical.6315]

Can strikes even start if not everyone clicks the button to begin?  Seems to me, if that were the case, ready checks are just redundant. 

Edited April 11, 2022 by mythical.6315

[Asum.4960]

4 minutes ago, mythical.6315 said:

Can strikes even start if not everyone clicks the button to begin?  Seems to me, if that were the case, ready checks are just redundant. 

They can. It's just on a timer. In fact, not even everybody needs to be in the instance yet before the "check" can complete. 

 

I honestly don't know what the point of it is, but it's not a ready check substitute - or at least it's definitely not used that way.

[mythical.6315]

14 minutes ago, Asum.4960 said:

They can. It's just on a timer. In fact, not even everybody needs to be in the instance yet before the "check" can complete. 

 

I honestly don't know what the point of it is, but it's not a ready check substitute - or at least it's definitely not used that way.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying that. 

[Chaba.5410]

11 minutes ago, Asum.4960 said:

And you cut out the literal opening to my post in which I said, and I quote: 

Quote

While these functions are not required

just to make the point that these functions are not required?

I cut it because my focus was on what you also said  about "core experience never requiring grouping of any kind", which you know is not true.  Absolutist statements with words like "never" are sure to get a response.  While you personally may understand the difference between something necessary to do content and QoL for doing content, the distinction needs to be emphasized.  You are not the only reader of my response to you.

 

24 minutes ago, Asum.4960 said:

What you are though is that times are changing, and with that culture and expectations. 

It's fine if people used to stand in front of Dungeon entrances spamming group requests in chat, but that's not where the game is at these days, and you'd probably stand there for quite a while. 

If I were going to advocate for people standing in front of dungeon entrances, I would have.  That history illustrates the difference between necessity and QoL.  Players were still able to do group content before LFG.  What's actually interesting about the LFG tool is that while not strictly necessary, it shows that devs HAVE removed hurdles when the hurdle was an actual hurdle.

 

36 minutes ago, Asum.4960 said:

It's without question harder to get together and organise squads without some of the tag functionality. Does grouping being more bothersome when much of the functionality to fix it already exists in the game benefit the game, it's player's and Anet or not? 

 

The answer is pretty clear, and exactly why these features were added over time. Not because they are necessary, but because they improve the accessibility of the content in question - and since their introduction in many ways have become an expectation.

What do you mean it is without question?  It isn't harder.  There is zero difference in getting together using LFG if you have a tag or not.  People do it all the time or you just haven't noticed the commander-less squads in LFG?  Are you trying to say that a feature like the LFG tool is comparable to certain squad functions?  LFG improves the accessibility of the content.  Commander squad functions do not or at least are highly debatable and definitely not "without question".

 

56 minutes ago, Asum.4960 said:

I'm pointing out that 99% of the content in game not requiring grouping whatsoever builds up anxieties in players for when then suddenly faced with the need for it the few niches where the game does require it.

It's therefor paramount to then make that experience there as frictionless as can be (if not fixing the issue of lack of exposure/normalisation of grouping in the first place).

 

"Builds up anxieties"  Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?  Without proof you're suggesting that the wider playerbase is afraid of grouping up.  I have proof on the contrary.  Look at LFG.  Look at guilds.  Players are grouping up right now DESPITE this supposed anxiety that is created by 99% of the content.

1 hour ago, Asum.4960 said:

That's an entirely unnecessary extra hurdle to an already for many taxing to take up responsibility - actively harming the accessibility, and therefor growth, of such content without greater counter benefit. 

How exactly again is accessibility to group content harmed by not having a commander tag when one doesn't need a commander tag to create a 10-man squad and list it on LFG?

 

 

1 hour ago, Asum.4960 said:

I'd love for players to actively talk again instead, looking for groups, sorting themselves out in squads, etc., but I don't see that happening unless GW2 shifts a lot of it's philosophy towards more frequent required grouping and socialisation of it's playerbase - and suggesting that won't make you many friends in this community. 

So solutions to lessen that burden on those who are willing to step up by giving them the tools to do so more effectively more readily, is imo welcome.

You know how it won't happen for players to talk to each other?  If every single player has group functions that replace actively talking to each other.  Seriously, stop making excuses for teens and adults who refuse to interact in chat.  It's ridiculous to expect that someone doesn't have to engage in any teamwork when doing team content.

Lastly, it's extremely disingenuous to talk about players willing to step up when talking about removing obstacles to stepping up.  People who actually step up don't let easily jumped hurdles stand in their way.

[Chaba.5410]

56 minutes ago, Albi.7250 said:

Nobody says it is necessary to beat the Content. You can send an one armed Necro with a stutter only accompanied by 9 monkeys with keyboards into the shiverpeak and they will return victorious. Doesn´t mean a non commander Pug group should run staggered into kodans because people fear we come for there commander tags.

 

That is not about not wanting to write "ready?" in chat. I sit there and explain People in lfg what the boss does if need be. You have to talk about roles anyway. It is amateurish and not the proper way to conduct a Strike. And there is no reason to not implement it in normal Squads or offer an alternative that doesn't cost 300g which is a lot for casual Players.

 

Two question for you guys:

If you ever find yourself in a Strike mission you guys use the Ready-Check with your Commander-Tags?
If yes, why?

You think a commander tag solves those issues like people running staggered or figuring out roles?  I'm sorry if I have to be the first to inform you that it doesn't.

[Peterson.5172]

4 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

You think a commander tag solves those issues like people running staggered or figuring out roles?  I'm sorry if I have to be the first to inform you that it doesn't.

so just to clarify, OP isnt asking for the tag, just group functions

now, lets say you are right, it doesnt help. but does it hurt anyone?

[kharmin.7683]

4 minutes ago, Peterson.5172 said:

so just to clarify, OP isnt asking for the tag, just group functions

now, lets say you are right, it doesnt help. but does it hurt anyone?

But aren't those functions already incorporated in the tag?

[Chaba.5410]

3 minutes ago, Peterson.5172 said:

so just to clarify, OP isnt asking for the tag, just group functions

now, lets say you are right, it doesnt help. but does it hurt anyone?

Yes.  It hurts those who spent 300g to get the functions that come with the tag.

Does it really hurt anyone to require 300g to get squad functions that aren't strictly necessary for group content or accessibility to such content?

[Westenev.5289]

I have a tag, but I'm not happy using it when I am first timing content with pug's (esp if I'm joining a preexisting group - I've had too many bad raid experiences where someone joins, tags up and kicks/mismanages the group - I don't want to be that guy xD).

 

Universal group tools would help, I think.

[SlayerXX.7138]

40 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

You think a commander tag solves those issues like people running staggered or figuring out roles?  I'm sorry if I have to be the first to inform you that it doesn't.

Nobody is talking about figuring out roles. And yes I do believe its gonna help. It seems worth repeating the end of the Quote, which suspiciously got ignored. 

If you ever find yourself in a Strike mission do you use the Ready-Check?
If yes, why?

Edited April 11, 2022 by Albi.7250
Calrification

[Chaba.5410]

25 minutes ago, Albi.7250 said:

Nobody is talking about figuring out roles. And yes I do believe its gonna help. It seems worth repeating the end of the Quote, which suspiciously got ignored. 

If you ever find yourself in a Strike mission you use the Ready-Check?
If yes, why?

Your question was answered.  You think the ready-check function solves the issue of people running staggered into fights.  It does not.  That's why you were asking, no?  You still get some jokers who just go ahead or not paying attention to anything or the group decides it doesn't need to wait for the very last person.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[giromon.5960]

As someone who tags up for strikes pretty frequently, I don't actually use ready checks most of the time because that's an extra button press over just waiting for everyone to get into the instance then talking to an npc. 

 

You don't need a tag for anything except raids and wvw, and basic communication skills easily provide the same services for strikes and fractals,  albeit slightly less efficient.  

 

As an aside regarding the "paywall", I wouldn't want to follow a commander who considers 300g a massive block, especially in today's economy.   That tells me that the person probably isn't playing the game much at all. 

[Asum.4960]

1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

I cut it because my focus was on what you also said  about "core experience never requiring grouping of any kind", which you know is not true.  Absolutist statements with words like "never" are sure to get a response. 

Alright, maybe the issue there is in semantics. With "core experience" I didn't mean vanilla GW2 as in the core game (including Dungeons and Fractals), but rather the core gaming experience/golden path as gaming terminology that most players are funneled through, which is Story and OW content for GW2 - non of which at any point requires any active interaction, such as grouping, with a single other player. 

 

And while players (including me) love(d) to hate things like forced grouping, other games that do it, including MMO's of old where that was common practice, have and had significantly less problems of this kind. 

Anyway, I could get a lot more into that, but that's getting beside the point.

 

Quote

If I were going to advocate for people standing in front of dungeon entrances, I would have.  That history illustrates the difference between necessity and QoL.  Players were still able to do group content before LFG.  What's actually interesting about the LFG tool is that while not strictly necessary, it shows that devs HAVE removed hurdles when the hurdle was an actual hurdle.

And you also pointed out that in some cases it took years to get there, with people asking for those features/changes in threads just like this one, to be dismissed with the same arguments you are bringing forth. 

They have done so in the past, they can do so again. 

Asking players to pay a for many very significant amount of gold for the "privilege" of taking on more responsibility in forming and managing squads, acting as a guiding figure and catching more heat when things go wrong is silly, and a hurdle.

 

Quote

What do you mean it is without question?  It isn't harder.  There is zero difference in getting together using LFG if you have a tag or not.  People do it all the time or you just haven't noticed the commander-less squads in LFG? 

Oh I have, in fact, I've joined many of those when there weren't any alternatives with Tag already up as well. Do you know what almost always the first question in chat for those squads is? "Can anyone Tag up?"

There is also definitely not zero difference. Tag-less squads, not giving the impression of existing management that those tools provide, fill much slower and sometimes not at all unless there just aren't any alternatives on LFG. 

They are in my experience much slower to get started and organized, see much more leavers (often people jumping ship to new squads with a tag popping up on LFG), etc.

 

Quote

"Builds up anxieties"  Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?  Without proof you're suggesting that the wider playerbase is afraid of grouping up.  I have proof on the contrary.  Look at LFG. 

Yes, please do look at LFG. What you will commonly notice is that an LFG for content like Strikes can be empty for minutes at a time, then a Squad pops up and fills in 3 to10 seconds, rinse and repeat. 

It's very clear from observing LFG, and a fairly commonly observed and accepted fact in the community, that there is a severe lack of commanders/players willing to take up that mantle in the community - with players just staring at the LFG waiting for a squad to pop up far exceeding the 9 to 1 ratio of players actually creating squads. 

Anything increasing the amount of players willing to do that job, by for example making squad organization tools more accessible, is a win for the game - especially endgame PvE.

 

Quote

You know how it won't happen for players to talk to each other?  If every single player has group functions that replace actively talking to each other.  Seriously, stop making excuses for teens and adults who refuse to interact in chat.  It's ridiculous to expect that someone doesn't have to engage in any teamwork when doing team content.

Lastly, it's extremely disingenuous to talk about players willing to step up when talking about removing obstacles to stepping up.  People who actually step up don't let easily jumped hurdles stand in their way.

I'm not interested in making any excuses for anyone. I'm simply observing the community and trends in the now nearly 10 years of playing this game, as well as gaming as a whole. 

We can watch content like Raids continue to die, or lobby for increased accessibility. Since I rather not see the content itself dumped down, I much prefer to see that attempted in form of more readily available and streamlined grouping and organisation tools first. 

Player's simply aren't just suddenly going to socialise and communicate due to lack of grouping and management tools, especially not if the core gaming experience doesn't encourage and foster it. They are simply not going to engage with the content relying on it. 

Am I sad about that as a gaming old timer? Yes - but I can't deny the reality of modern gaming and where it's going just because I don't like it - rather than trying to adapt to it as best as possible while trying to preserve what's appealing about it to me as best as possible. 

 

300 gold might be an easily jumped hurdle for you and me, and I get the impression from your arguments and observations (esp. if you think there isn't a commander scarcity and grouping issue in the game) that you are far above average in your engagement with active guilds and/or even statics, but that's not representative of the greater community - which imo fairly clearly is struggling with that aspect of the game. 

 

51 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Yes.  It hurts those who spent 300g to get the functions that come with the tag.

 

I suppose they'll have to ask themselves what's more important, the growth of the content they enjoy, or protecting their past investment of buying the tag for exactly those tools you are now arguing against being significantly beneficial for grouping, at the expense of the community and content they bought it for.

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Asum.4960

[Peterson.5172]

47 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Yes.  It hurts those who spent 300g to get the functions that come with the tag.

Does it really hurt anyone to require 300g to get squad functions that aren't strictly necessary for group content or accessibility to such content?

i spent 300g on the tag, what they do in their group vs an npc doesnt affect me at all.

52 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

But aren't those functions already incorporated in the tag?

which is a 300g hurdle, costing some up to 5 weeks to get

if we want people instanced content, why not remove hurdles?

[Hashberry.4510]

I am an old time gamer. I always hated the social requirement for forming groups, negotiating with gatekeepers. LFD was the best kitten thing WoW ever added; we sorely need that here.

[Chaba.5410]

1 hour ago, Asum.4960 said:

Alright, maybe the issue there is in semantics. With "core experience" I didn't mean vanilla GW2 as in the core game (including Dungeons and Fractals), but rather the core gaming experience/golden path as gaming terminology that most players are funneled through, which is Story and OW content for GW2 - non of which at any point requires any active interaction, such as grouping, with a single other player.

OK I can see how there was some misunderstanding on my part of what you meant by core.  My only comment is that the game does still try to funnel players to dungeons while playing through the Personal Story.

1 hour ago, Asum.4960 said:

And you also pointed out that in some cases it took years to get there, with people asking for those features/changes in threads just like this one, to be dismissed with the same arguments you are bringing forth.

Players are also asking for a queuing system like in ESO for group content rather than the LFG tool.  /shrug  I'm not entirely sure what you think my argument is.  I mainly take issue in this thread with the idea that this is a pay-2-win situation to do strikes: "The Average Player can't play Strike Missions correctly without paying 300g." or that "The Ready-Check is the bar minimum in group communication to properly conduct a Strike".  What even does it mean to do a strike "correctly" or "properly"?

1 hour ago, Asum.4960 said:

It's very clear from observing LFG, and a fairly commonly observed and accepted fact in the community, that there is a severe lack of commanders/players willing to take up that mantle in the community - with players just staring at the LFG waiting for a squad to pop up far exceeding the 9 to 1 ratio of players actually creating squads.

Refer back above to the queuing system I mentioned when thinking about what the actual hurdles to this content is.  Lack of players willing to make groups on LFG is not the same thing as lack of commander tags and the squad functions.  I have extreme doubts that the reason there's a lack of players creating groups on LFG for strikes is primarily the result of lack of a ready-check so adding that in isn't going to solve it.  If I had to guess, it probably has something more to do with the LFG makes you have to put some work into finding people unlike what happens with a queue system which can automate even what roles players fill.

1 hour ago, Asum.4960 said:

We can watch content like Raids continue to die, or lobby for increased accessibility. Since I rather not see the content dumped down, I much prefer to see that attempted in form of more readily available grouping tools first. 

It's really difficult to use raids as an example of something dying because of lack of squad functionality.  There hasn't been any new raid content since 2019.

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Asum.4960]

25 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

I mainly take issue in this thread with the idea that this is a pay-2-win situation to do strikes: "The Average Player can't play Strike Missions correctly without paying 300g." or that "The Ready-Check is the bar minimum in group communication to properly conduct a Strike".  What even does it mean to do a strike "correctly" or "properly"?

Refer back above to the queuing system I mentioned when thinking about what the actual hurdles to this content is.  Lack of players willing to make groups on LFG is not the same thing as lack of commander tags and the squad functions.  I have extreme doubts that the reason there's a lack of players creating groups on LFG for strikes is primarily the result of lack of a ready-check.  If I had to guess, it probably has something more to do with the LFG makes you have to put some work into finding people unlike what happens with a queue system which can automate even what roles players fill.

It's really difficult to use raids as an example of something dying because of lack of squad functionality.  There hasn't been any new raid content since 2019.

 

I've not seen that argument (though I may have well missed that or just disregarded it as too silly to address), but in any case I don't agree with that either. Nor am I suggesting this subject being the primary issue of grouping or cause of content like Raids declining, far from it. 

I just think that even though it's not the primary issue but merely a tiny contributing factor, it's a step along the way of easing people into that crucial role, especially for the pugging scene, and anything that can help in that regard to grow the community for that content is imo worthwhile considering if we want to see long time and maybe even greater support for such content going forward. 

 

Any hurdle that can be cleared for people to get into this content and make groups, which doesn't result in the content itself being cheapened and losing what makes it appealing in the first place to it's audience, is imo a good thing at this point. 

I just don't see any benefit to gatekeeping group management tools, aside from protecting past player investment's into the Tag for those reasons specifically. Longterm, that's imo not the right move for the game though - as much as I have sympathy for that sense of lost value if such a change would be made. 

Tag functionality was changed before to be more accessible by changing it from being character bound to account bound (although with it tripling the price). 

It might be time to uncouple the group management tools from it and to bring it back down to 100g account wide.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Asum.4960

[Chaba.5410]

5 minutes ago, Asum.4960 said:

Any hurdle that can be cleared for people to get into this content and make groups, which doesn't result in the content itself being cheapened and losing what makes it appealing in the first place to it's audience, is imo a good thing at this point.

Going after "any hurdle" is a bad and wasteful approach compared with targeted solutions.

I do think personally that some sort of queuing or matchmaking system layered on top of the ability to do private/custom parties/squads for group content would largely alleviate the biggest hang-ups with regards to getting players into group content and making groups.

[SlayerXX.7138]

2 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Your question was answered.  You think the ready-check function solves the issue of people running staggered into fights.  It does not.  That's why you were asking, no?  You still get some jokers who just go ahead or not paying attention to anything or the group decides it doesn't need to wait for the very last person.

The Reason I am asking is the same Reason you and others dodge the questions like you all maining Daredevils. Ready-Check is is a helpful tool that is why people use it. And the only Reason people not use it in Strikes is because they don't have access to it or they have such a high skill level that they could do the Strike drunk with a hand tied behind there back. And even THEN they use it from time to time because its is just how you run that content.

 

Will a Ready-Check have a HUGE positive impact? probably not Huge. But that's the Point! It is an easy to implement(most likely done by an underpaid intern) positive change that should hurt nobody. And you guys act like we are grabbing the 300g directly from your wallet, what apparently shouldn't even be a problem as 300g isn`t a big investment anyway. Nobody who is against even offer an alternative. Do you guys really thing it reasonable to lock interface function behind(for casual Players) multiple week long grind. You cant be serious. Not every on can be expected to commit so hard to a game as we do. There is no prestige in grouping your teammates into subgroups. There is no Glory in doing a ready-Check. 

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Albi.7250

[Asum.4960]

12 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Going after "any hurdle" is a bad and wasteful approach compared with targeted solutions.

I do think personally that some sort of queuing or matchmaking system layered on top of the ability to do private/custom parties/squads for group content would largely alleviate the biggest hang-ups with regards to getting players into group content and making groups.

I don't see that as wasteful since it's enabling existing technology at pretty much no opportunity cost for a positive effect.

While I'm personally not the biggest fan of fully automated grouping systems due to the game/profession homogenization that requires, that is what we might be heading towards into the more far future with Anet being in the process of more clearly defining roles with Heal, Quickness, Alac and DPS. 

But again, while I agree with that current process and efforts of increased general role recognition, I'd personally not like to see homogenization to a point where "Matchmaking" would be effective for PvE groups.

Whatever the case might be, we are still a long time away from that considering role compressions, certain providers not working together (due to lacking boons like Might etc., ex. Alac Specter + Quickness Harbinger) and so on. 

 

Until then, and even after that, it's imo silly that groups can't run a quick ready check and such by default.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Asum.4960

[Chaba.5410]

1 minute ago, Asum.4960 said:

Until then, and even after that, it's imo silly that groups can't run a quick ready check and such by default.

Silly or not, it might be the case that the reason why it isn't there is because the underlying tech requires a designated party/squad leader to initiate such a check and there isn't one "by default".  It also might not be such a simple thing to implement.  Think about the basic party and complaints people have when trolls merge parties and kick out a player who may have started one of the parties.  There's no authoritative player and a ready check function is most likely tied to having one.