Rework LFG tool

[Sobx.1758]

On 8/13/2023 at 5:01 PM, Kozumi.5816 said:

They benefit from being able to clog the LFG list with services.

As already mentioned the last time you made up this random claim, that's just false.

3 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

One such scenario is LFG has an option to matchmake players based on the role they are playing automatically ... a VERY far cry from what is currently implemented. 

Wonder how you imagine that's supposed to somehow automatically happen with the current game design.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Sobx.1758

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

On 8/13/2023 at 5:01 PM, Kozumi.5816 said:

They benefit from being able to clog the LFG list with services.

Ah yes, people disagreeing with the need of a system that wouldn't work in GW2 means you're selling services.

If we all sell services you can certainly see it, right? Totally not just throwing it out without any base.

[Kozumi.5816]

7 hours ago, IAmNotMatthew.1058 said:

Ah yes, people disagreeing with the need of a system that wouldn't work in GW2 means you're selling services.

I don't understand how you think having a premade finder where users select their role(what they already do) and a system where commanders can request a role (WHAT THEY ALSO ALREADY DO) can't work in GW2.

Am I living in another dimension?

[Obtena.7952]

8 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Wonder how you imagine that's supposed to somehow automatically happen with the current game design.

It wouldn't ... that's why this thread exists. The point is that LFG in its current form is a very low level implementation. There is lots of room for improvement. Whether LFG is 'broken' or not is irrelevant, so when someone uses that as a detriment to discuss a valid topic, it's just a dismissal.  

I mean, if we want to talk about imagining how this automatic allocation of players in teams would work, I don't think it's that hard. We can imagine all kinds of things that would make LFG better. The point isn't to debate any one of those things. The point is that it's not hard to see that there is value in additions to LFG as improvements over what we currently have, so it shouldn't be so readily dismissed. 

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Linken.6345]

34 minutes ago, Kozumi.5816 said:

I don't understand how you think having a premade finder where users select their role(what they already do) and a system where commanders can request a role (WHAT THEY ALSO ALREADY DO) can't work in GW2.

Am I living in another dimension?

Apparently you do since you fail to see the answers to your question that have been posted in both these threads multiple times.

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

3 hours ago, Kozumi.5816 said:

I don't understand how you think having a premade finder where users select their role(what they already do) and a system where commanders can request a role (WHAT THEY ALSO ALREADY DO) can't work in GW2.

Am I living in another dimension?

If you bothered to read any of my opinions on premade groups in GW2 you'd realize that I'm literally kittening saying that it would be an improvement, but you can't be bothered to do it since you have to repeat "oh you sell raids" over and over and over and over again.

You are living in your own dimension based on how you're ignoring the whole fact that you'd need to be locked into the role you join as for it to work. So many times it has been mentioned that copy-pasting such system won't solve anything and each time it's mentioned you just ignore it.

[Klypto.1703]

The truth is with LFG there has to be people actually looking for people to group with.  There's nothing wrong with the tool it's just there are no players looking for anyone to play with.

[Obtena.7952]

1 hour ago, Klypto.1703 said:

The truth is with LFG there has to be people actually looking for people to group with.  There's nothing wrong with the tool it's just there are no players looking for anyone to play with.

Maybe one reason for that is because the tool they have to find people to group with isn't very useful to find people to group with. 🤔Like, somehow you suggest there simply aren't people that want to group up? Based on what?

Edited August 15, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Sobx.1758]

16 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

It wouldn't ... that's why this thread exists. The point is that LFG in its current form is a very low level implementation. There is lots of room for improvement.

Of course in order for the lfg to change, the lfg would need to change, that's not what I asked about..
The quetion was about how your newly implemented lfg/group search would be supposed to automatically work in the current overal game design, which is about builds/classes/roles and content they operate within.

16 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Whether LFG is 'broken' or not is irrelevant, so when someone uses that as a detriment to discuss a valid topic, it's just a dismissal.  

Not sure why you're writing this at me, I didn't write anything like that and as far as I'm aware, it has nothing to do with my question.

16 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

I mean, if we want to talk about imagining how this automatic allocation of players in teams would work, I don't think it's that hard. We can imagine all kinds of things that would make LFG better. The point isn't to debate any one of those things. The point is that it's not hard to see that there is value in additions to LFG as improvements over what we currently have, so it shouldn't be so readily dismissed. 

"It's not hard" and you still listed none. So... again: how you imagine that's supposed to somehow automatically happen with the current game design?
If you don't have an answer to that then just write you don't have an answer instead of saying "it's easy" but somehow still refusing to answer the question.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Sobx.1758

[Sobx.1758]

5 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Maybe one reason for that is because the tool they have to find people to group with isn't very useful to find people to group with.

But that's false and I know it because I keep using it. 🤷‍♂️

[Obtena.7952]

On 8/15/2023 at 2:30 PM, Sobx.1758 said:

But that's false and I know it because I keep using it. 🤷‍♂️

Well, let's be more accurate then:

The tool could be more useful and if it was, it's possible more people would use it. It's a fallacy for anyone to imply there aren't people LFG so there isn't any value in improving the tool. Fundamentally, there shouldn't be ANY debate that a LFG tool is an important part of an MMO and the better it functions, the more likely it will do it's intended job ... better than it's most basic level of implementation, which is pretty much what we have. 

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Obtena.7952]

On 8/15/2023 at 2:26 PM, Sobx.1758 said:

"It's not hard" and you still listed none.

Right, because again, my point isn't to 'fly my flag' on my ideas on how Anet could do automatic matchmaking with an LFG tool. The point was to ensure no one simply dismisses discussion about the fact that there is value in LFG being improved and benefitting the game, Anet and players.  Notions that 'it's not broken so don't fix it' or 'there isn't people LFG so we don't need improvement' is nonsensical and dismissive. 

I mean, I don't even get the idea people would reject improving it, other than some dumb idea that if Anet improves LFG, the rejecters will not get something they want from the game devs because of it. It's certainly not the pinnacle of LFG tools I've seen, so that ain't the reason. 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Zohane.7208]

8 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Right, because again, my point isn't to 'fly my flag' on my ideas on how Anet could do automatic matchmaking with an LFG tool. The point was to ensure no one simply dismisses discussion about the fact that there is value in LFG being improved and benefitting the game, Anet and players.  Notions that 'it's not broken so don't fix it' or 'there isn't people LFG so we don't need improvement' is nonsensical and dismissive. 

I mean, I don't even get the idea people would reject improving it, other than some dumb idea that if Anet improves LFG, the rejecters will not get something they want from the game devs because of it. It's certainly not the pinnacle of LFG tools I've seen, so that ain't the reason. 

It's not that people are against improvements to the LFG (or other things), it's just that many of us don't see this as an actual improvlement, for reasons explained numerous times. This is also why we ask those that want this change to explain to us how it would handle the obstacles we see. If someone can actually show that it would work with the game's way of team building it might change our view.

Sadly, so far I haven't seen anyone actually do that; it's more of telling us that "it works in that-other-game" or "we don't need the special roles" or even "well we just have to nerf things so they're not eneeded anymore", and none of that actually tells us how it will work.

[Zohane.7208]

Let's play a little game here:

Let's say I want to run tier 4 fractals and want a group for that. Since I play dps I want 1 boonheal, 1 boondps and 2 more dps. Now, since the boonheal can either be a quickheal or an alacheal the boondps has to be the opposite (alacdps or quickdps). As soon as either a boonheal or a boondps joins, that will lock in the requirement of the other role. (So if a quickdps joins, then the lfg must change so that it requires an alacheal.) This is a simple, yet very common case,

2nd case: I want to do strikes so I want a complete team consisting of 2 boonheals, 2 boondps, and 5 more dps. Same as above applies here, in that boon roles affect each other so I either want 2 quickheals and 2 alacdps, 2 alacheals and 2 quickdps, or one of each role. I don't care how the combination ends up as long as I get it.

Last example: I want to do raid wing 3, so I pretty much want the same kind of team as for the strikes, but in addition I need a tank (preferrably one of the healers), a tower person for escort, a pusher for the orb in KC, and if possible a skip and portals for the castle. Since I'm not sure how good we will perform I'd also like someone to handle the backwargs in the escort (but that's for sure a very minor role).

 

Can you show us how the auto group finder would handle these? That would be awesome.

[Gendalfs.7521]

Like a popup window when you join group to select your role. Ex. heal, heal alac, heal quick, dps alac, dps quick, dps and so on.

And then in group window there could be little extra icons for commander to know which does what.

 

[Zohane.7208]

1 hour ago, Gendalfs.7521 said:

Like a popup window when you join group to select your role. Ex. heal, heal alac, heal quick, dps alac, dps quick, dps and so on.

And then in group window there could be little extra icons for commander to know which does what.

 

Except.... that doesn't explain how the group finder would handle::

1. When (for example) a healer joins, it would need to understand that it immediately needs to change the requirements so that the boondps becomes more restrictive.
2. In the raid example, if a tower person joins, it would need to automatically understand if that person is also a dps and if they can perform other roles like maybe skip for castle. How would those linked roles be handled? (I mean the group finder would list 2 boonheals, 2 boondps, 5 dps, 1 tower, 1 pusher, 1 tank, 1 skip, 1 portal, and 1 backwarg - some of which would be optional and some required. 15 roles for 9 people.)

[Sobx.1758]

16 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Right, because again, my point isn't to 'fly my flag' on my ideas on how Anet could do automatic matchmaking with an LFG tool. The point was to ensure no one simply dismisses discussion about the fact that there is value in LFG being improved and benefitting the game, Anet and players.  Notions that 'it's not broken so don't fix it' or 'there isn't people LFG so we don't need improvement' is nonsensical and dismissive. 

I mean, I don't even get the idea people would reject improving it, other than some dumb idea that if Anet improves LFG, the rejecters will not get something they want from the game devs because of it. It's certainly not the pinnacle of LFG tools I've seen, so that ain't the reason. 

Quick note that you still didn't respond to anything and claiming "it's so easy" while repeatedly being unable to share any idea you apparently know is "so easy" only shows that you don't have a solution here, so you intentionally stay in the realm of unverifiable vagueness.
That has nothing to do with somehow "flying your flag on your ideas", but everything to do with "supporting the vague claims you're making".

I don't know how you think ""discussing"" anything in this manner:

Quote

"It's easy to do!"
-ok, how can it be easly done then?
"Weeeell.... It's not about me, it's just easy to do!"

...is somehow "ensuring no one simply dismisses discussion about the fact that there is value in LFG being improved and benefitting the game". It isn't. It only shows that when someone explains "why it would be hard to do", you don't know how to address it, so you basically retreat to repeating "it's easy [even if in reality I don't know if it is]". If anything, it looks like an attempt to avoid the discussion in order to avoid saying "ok, this one can be problematic" (because if it's not problematic then explain exactly how it is not problematic 🙄).

We can do that with literally any claim and it will be equally unsubstantial:
"Using teleportation in real life is easy"
-ok, how can we teleport then?
"hey, it's not about me flying my flag on the teleportation ideas, I just want you to know teleportation is easy".

This is supposed to be a "discussion" about anything? I don't think so.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Sobx.1758

[Cyninja.2954]

5 hours ago, Gendalfs.7521 said:

Like a popup window when you join group to select your role. Ex. heal, heal alac, heal quick, dps alac, dps quick, dps and so on.

And then in group window there could be little extra icons for commander to know which does what.

 

Okay, let's for a moment entertain the idea of custom roles which can be selected. This is currently done via abreviations and typed out and combined as needed in the LFG. If we were to sum up every single critical individual role there would be more than 15-20 accross all instanced content (alacheal, alacdps, quickheal, quickdps, canons @sab, shrooms @sloth, cave @escort, tank @xera, etc.), not counting less critical roles but just those which HAVE to be done on certain fights and the queue system would have to be designed to work with all content. 

So the commander sets up his LFG, let's use the following example:

- W5  100kp, dps (epi+g1)

Which stands for: looking for a dps for wing 5 with 100 kp who will do epi at Soulless Horror (aka has to play necro there) and who does first green at Dhuum. A rather common, pretty strait forward request.

Do dps players sign up for individual roles? They could maybe have a checklist to tag which things they are able to do (again a long list).

Do dps players sign up only for wing 5, because as is in other games the easier more popular stuff fills constantly, or does that get managed differently?

Are there any fail safes? Speaking from personal experience (both here as well as WoW, DAoC, SWToR, LotRO, WO, etc.) sometimes players sign up for the role which fill fastest, no matter if they are suited for the slot or not. What happens if dps players just check all the boxes, because that will get them the fastest invites, but they aren't able to do specific mechanics?

What about a dps player who joins for SH but then decides to ditch (a common occurance today with fractal CM leavers which do not stay for T4s)? Now the squad is not at the beginning of a wing, still has very specific needs in regards to the dps (g1@dhuum) but even more qualifiers are added (not a full wing), do signed up dps still get matched? They now are missing SH if they decide to stay.

Again of this is currently handled via text and abreviations, and this is JUST talking about the dps slot, the notorious least mechanic burdened one. We aren't even talking support, offensive support, alac or quickness and all the roles that those slots do

In general, the LFG could use some touch ups, especially color coding for specific roles for example, it's own proper UI, etc.

Auto matchmaking is a very different beast to implement in this game for anything which is not pure 0 mechanic fiesta and not designed around proper boon setups. As mentioned: the IBS strikes would work and dungeons.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Kozumi.5816]

4 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

. If we were to sum up every single critical individual role there would be more than 15-20 accross all instanced content (alacheal, alacdps, quickheal, quickdps, canons @sab, shrooms @sloth, cave @escort, tank @xera, etc.

No there isn't. There's 5 roles

Alac DPS, Alac Heal, QDPS, Qheal, DPS

[yoni.7015]

2 minutes ago, Kozumi.5816 said:

No there isn't. There's 5 roles

Alac DPS, Alac Heal, QDPS, Qheal, DPS

You clearly don’t know anything about raiding in this game.

[Kozumi.5816]

3 minutes ago, yoni.7015 said:

You clearly don’t know anything about raiding in this game.

Raiding isn't a supported game mode. Strikes and fractals have 5 roles.

No one, including Anet, cares about raids.

 

Anyways, being able to see that people are signing up as those 5 roles would be insanely helpful to group and a huge user experience increase in all instanced content.

THIS IS FOR PREMADE FINDER NOT AUTOMATED GROUPING.

Keep arguing against it for the sake of your your sales, though.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Kozumi.5816

[yoni.7015]

1 minute ago, Kozumi.5816 said:

Raiding isn't a supported game mode. Strikes and fractals have 5 roles.

No one, including Anet, cares about raids.

So what? People still raid in this game and use the LFG tool to find groups. 
There are a lot of players that care about raids. 

[yoni.7015]

8 minutes ago, Kozumi.5816 said:

Anyways, being able to see that people are signing up as those 5 roles would be insanely helpful to group and a huge user experience increase in all instanced content.

It wouldn’t be helpful and it would not work in this game, you just fail to understand that even though many people here have explained to you over and over why it wouldn’t work. 
How exactly does it increase user experience in raids when I can’t select the many roles required in raids? Now I can just write what role I am looking for, very simple and it works. 

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by yoni.7015

[Kozumi.5816]

9 minutes ago, yoni.7015 said:

It wouldn’t be helpful and it would not work in this game,

w h a t

lol.

Seriously, what?

Go into LFG - > all the groups are asking for x roles in comments. When you join, you tell the commander your role.  Being able to see a commander REQUESTING that with the UI and being unable to join if your role(s) aren't set(Sometimes people join without reading) to that isn't helpful.

BTW, it's possible to code "MISC" or "flex" role(s) if you require/are more than  the 5, also you can still add comments.

But yeah, isn't helpful. Making grouping easier and increasing QOL is terrible, 0/10, do not develop.

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Kozumi.5816

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

1 minute ago, Kozumi.5816 said:

w h a t

lol.

Seriously, what?

Go into LFG - > all the groups are asking for x roles in comments. When you join, you tell the commander your role.  Being able to see a commander REQUESTING that with the UI and being unable to join if your role(s) aren't set(Sometimes people join without reading) to that isn't helpful.

 

If you can already see that Commanders request the role why do you want to add a feature doing exactly that? That'd be just a waste of resources by Anet.