Rework LFG tool

[vares.8457]

2 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

OK ... I'm not suggesting the Hardstruck team builder tool be put into the game ... 🤷‍♂️

Of course, it's completely absurd to think having to go to someone's 3rd party website to build a team makes any sense to anyone outside of that system ... but OK. 

If you struggle to do it, why not? Get some help on other websites. 
Most players that use the LFG tool know how to write a proper description, so guidance in game is not necessary. 

[Obtena.7952]

43 minutes ago, vares.8457 said:

If you struggle to do it, why not? Get some help on other websites. 
Most players that use the LFG tool know how to write a proper description, so guidance in game is not necessary. 

Again, I'm not arguing it's necessary or not so your points aren't relevant to me. I'm saying there is value to improve the LFG tool in the game. I mean, maybe you think 3rd party workarounds and learning "the right way" by osmosis make the current situation fine because it works for you. For other people, it doesn't. Based on the history of "success" of endgame content in GW2, I'm leaning towards the fact that lots of things don't work for LOTS of people, LFG tool included. 

None of those 3rd party workarounds are in anyone's best interests to support endgame content.  None of those workarounds make sense in a game this scale and status. 

Edited August 21, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

2 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Again, I'm not arguing it's necessary or not so your points aren't relevant to me. I'm saying there is value to improve the LFG tool in the game. I mean, maybe you think 3rd party workarounds and learning "the right way" by osmosis make the current situation fine because it works for you. For other people, it doesn't. Based on the history of "success" of endgame content in GW2, I'm leaning towards the fact that lots of things don't work for LOTS of people, LFG tool included. 

None of those 3rd party workarounds are in anyone's best interests to support endgame content.  None of those workarounds make sense in a game this scale and status. 

Considering there aren't many complaints about how LFG works and groups on LFG seem to do just fine with their descriptions people seem to be fine with the current method.
If a person doesn't know how to use the current LFG adding any of the "improvements" mentioned won't do anything.

Blaming the state of endgame on spending 10 seconds to write down roles needed is a nice try though, love that one.

[Sobx.1758]

7 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

That makes no sense. You don't think the tool could give players guidance to make teams? Of course it could. I mean, what problem are you talking about fixing here?

What guidance? What problem are you trying to fix here? Because usually it's the person proposing a change/solution, who has to outline a problem to solve in the first place. Something you still didn't really do.

 

7 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

OK ... I'm not suggesting the Hardstruck team builder tool be put into the game ... 🤷‍♂️

Cool, what are you suggesting then? Because it seems like... nothing? Just repeating "but it can be improved!" and "maybe it's good for you!". 0 specifics, so... good luck with "improving" anything with these posts where you apparently don't even know what and how should be improved. 🤷‍♂️

 

8 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

the current tool working for you

7 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

EVEN if it works for you

Nah, not just "for him", it just works. Someone being unwilling to use the lfg doesn't change that it works.

[Obtena.7952]

5 hours ago, IAmNotMatthew.1058 said:

Considering there aren't many complaints about how LFG works and groups on LFG seem to do just fine with their descriptions people seem to be fine with the current method.

Sure, for the people that use it. Not that ones that don't. 

Again, this isn't about 'if it works, don't fix it' or "people that use it like it". It's about improving it. 

Edited August 21, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Linken.6345]

4 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Sure, for the people that use it. Not that ones that don't. 

Again, this isn't about 'if it works, don't fix it' or "people that use it like it". It's about improving it. 

It is the you can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink comes to mind.

[Darkvramp.5640]

8 hours ago, vares.8457 said:

If you struggle to do it, why not? Get some help on other websites. 
Most players that use the LFG tool know how to write a proper description, so guidance in game is not necessary. 

anytime, a lfg tool is so poor, that people use outside tools to find groups, because the in game tool is not sufficient for the needs of the player base, that they need to go outside the game, to potential NON SECURE sites and sources, then there is a huge problem.  You are supposed to keep players in your game ecosystem ,not encourage players to go outside of it.

Edited August 22, 2023 by Darkvramp.5640
addition

[Shiyo.3578]

It's so weird seeing the same people fight against improving something in the game.

[Zohane.7208]

4 hours ago, Shiyo.3578 said:

It's so weird seeing the same people fight against improving something in the game.

It's been said time and time again; it's not that people are against improvements, it's simply that a lot of us don't see that this would be an improvement. We've listed a lot of concerns and asked the proponents to show us how the "new lfg" would handle these. As long as it's not demonstrated to us that the change would actually be an improvement, a lot of us will continue to believe that it'll be a change for the worse, and thus argue against it.

Show us that the "new lfg" would work (and work well!) with the concerns we're raising - and I'm sure we'll all be for it.

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

7 hours ago, Shiyo.3578 said:

It's so weird seeing the same people fight against improving something in the game.

Copy and pasting systems made for other games is not improvement. 
Repeating the same "just copy this" is not an idea. Allowing people to select the roles they need while people joining still need to tell what role they want to do is not worth development time.

8 hours ago, Darkvramp.5640 said:

anytime, a lfg tool is so poor, that people use outside tools to find groups, because the in game tool is not sufficient for the needs of the player base, that they need to go outside the game, to potential NON SECURE sites and sources, then there is a huge problem.  You are supposed to keep players in your game ecosystem ,not encourage players to go outside of it.

Non secure sites such as? 

[Shadow Chaser.1948]

7 hours ago, Shiyo.3578 said:

It's so weird seeing the same people fight against improving something in the game.

Its always the same people fighting against improving raid related things. It makes me wonder if they are raid sellers. They are the same group of people who were against open world PVE armor as well.

[Cyninja.2954]

2 hours ago, Shadow Chaser.1948 said:

Its always the same people fighting against improving raid related things. It makes me wonder if they are raid sellers. They are the same group of people who were against open world PVE armor as well.

The ideas for improving the LFG are not new, they have come up in the past.

Now, most ideas brought up are always the same with the same lack of understanding:

 - make it auto grouping

- no regards for the complexity of this games class design and roles

- usually based around serving players who are struggling with simple social interactions

This isn't about disagreements with improving the LFG. It's about the suggested improvements not being as easily implemented or strait up useless. 

Case in point:

- auto grouping was asked for in the past. It got implemented for IBS strikes and was dead on arrival

- the system around KP being used was tackled by Arenanet for fractal CMs, net result an even more intrusive system replaced it: kp.me

 

The issues here come from many players not understanding the basic reasons for why specific behaviors develop as well as how instanced content works. As such the constantly returning ideas are being disagreed with.

Most players I believe would love and fully support improving the LFG, god knows it uses serious touch ups. What it doesn't need is the wrong touch ups because that would be a step back on an already antiquated system (which at least sorta fullfills its function).

Edited August 22, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

1 hour ago, Shadow Chaser.1948 said:

Its always the same people fighting against improving raid related things. It makes me wonder if they are raid sellers. They are the same group of people who were against open world PVE armor as well.

If we were Raid sellers you'd see us sell Raids instead of playing like everyone else. Disagreeing with cheap system copying that won't work is a sign that the person is selling Raids, nice assumptions. 

If you'd be thinking and looking around instead of just assuming kitten you'd see that I often mentioned what improvements could be added to LFG that has the potential to work, but, assuming things is easier, we all know it.

[The Boz.2038]

Sending me 100 gold is going to improve the game.

You aren't against improving the game, are you?

[Sobx.1758]

18 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Sure, for the people that use it. Not that ones that don't.

You're making a bad broad assumption that "since someone doesn't use lfg", it somehow means "it's because lfg isn't good enough". Meanwhile people don't use it -for the content in question- for varying reasons, including things like simply being scared of being in a smaller, less anonymous group (where what they do can actually impact an outcome) at all. No matter how you change lfg, it won't change anything about those players and yet... Apparently you'll still try concluding that since some players don't use lfg, it means lfg isn't good or doesn't do its job. But that's false.

 

17 hours ago, Shiyo.3578 said:

It's so weird seeing the same people fight against improving something in the game.

It's so weird seeing the same people being unable to address raised concerns, just to make another meta-commentary post about how others just "fight against improving something" or "are unwilling to discuss". What's up with these posts?

Edited August 22, 2023 by Sobx.1758

[Myriada.7580]

I kinda wish they would add the equivalent of public mode with matchmaker that only asks for 2 healers+1 tank+7 dps to strikes/raids/fractals so these players can have their dream system implemented so the rest of us can keep making our own groups with the current LFG.

[Linken.6345]

5 hours ago, Myriada.7580 said:

I kinda wish they would add the equivalent of public mode with matchmaker that only asks for 2 healers+1 tank+7 dps to strikes/raids/fractals so these players can have their dream system implemented so the rest of us can keep making our own groups with the current LFG.

Yea and then it will be new threads content to hard please nerf since my random auto que lfg cant do content.

[Darkvramp.5640]

17 hours ago, Linken.6345 said:

Yea and then it will be new threads content to hard please nerf since my random auto que lfg cant do content.

People do that now. So adding a random auto que is not going to change much. It is only going to make it more accessible.

Alot more of the toxic parts of the community are here on the forums than elsewhere.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Darkvramp.5640
edit for clarification

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

1 hour ago, Darkvramp.5640 said:

People do that now. So adding a random auto question is not going to change much. It is only going to make it more accessible.

Alot more of the toxic parts of the community are here on the forums than elsewhere.

Are Strikes more accessible thanks to such feature? I don't think I've ever seen a single public Strike fill up even when IBS Strikes were brand new.

[Obtena.7952]

7 hours ago, IAmNotMatthew.1058 said:

Are Strikes more accessible thanks to such feature? I don't think I've ever seen a single public Strike fill up even when IBS Strikes were brand new.

It's not unreasonable to think that some kind of auto matchmaking feature would make team content more accessible for some people. The question is how many people is such a thing value for. It's not even unreasonable to look to other games to see what the pro's cons are for such systems.

I'm of the opinion it's value add for anyone without a static group because getting more people into team content make the pool of team-content players larger. That's also a win for Anet ... and also a win for anyone arguing we should have more endgame content. People still convincing themselves accessibility isn't part of the reason raids aren't a thing anymore? The fewer barriers people have to content, the more people end up trying that content and adopting it. 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Cynder.2509]

On 6/28/2023 at 11:07 AM, TheNurgle.4825 said:

Let's not lie to each other and write down that LFG tool in GW2 is not good. Most "tabs" in LFG are not even used and ppl ignore them in general. Maybe in any future updates rework could be done.

Few option which would improve LFG tool:

1. Adding option to queue for several things at once = I can queue for daily fractals and daily strikes at same time.
2. When group is ready - conditions to create group is ready, then have pop-up window on player screen to get insta teleport to instance similar to PVP matches = I do not need to go to specific area to get in instance, for new ppl that would be huge QoL improvement.
3. Add option to queue as role for example healer, support, dps and option to queue as commander. Of course player can pick one or all options. Based on player's choice some lil icon would be shown next to their name/hp bar in party/squad setup.

A Queue might be good but also not and here's why: 
Queuing as a role might not be a good idea because you'll either end up with fake tanks or wait like 2 hours for a matchup. ESO has already shown why that's a bad thing with these examples. 
The other thing that needs to be done in that case is having a player experience check so total noobs won't get pitched into experienced raiders who want a speedclear. Maybe integrate the killproof thing into the lfg queue system could help there. Or just implement a matchmaking system like in PvP where it puts people of the same experience level together. It would certainly avoid a lot of frustration and toxic behaviour from both sides. 

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

8 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

It's not unreasonable to think that some kind of auto matchmaking feature would make team content more accessible for some people. The question is how many people is such a thing value for. It's not even unreasonable to look to other games to see what the pro's cons are for such systems.

I'm of the opinion it's value add for anyone without a static group because getting more people into team content make the pool of team-content players larger. That's also a win for Anet ... and also a win for anyone arguing we should have more endgame content. People still convincing themselves accessibility isn't part of the reason raids aren't a thing anymore? The fewer barriers people have to content, the more people end up trying that content and adopting it. 

Noone's saying accessibility isn't an issue.

People just say that the ideas brought up either make no sense or would not help. WoW's LFR would not fit into GW2 the same way you won't put a Polski Fiat engine into a motorbike, same purpose, similiar power, different design.  There has been endless examples as to why "just copy this" wouldn't work, but seems like people just won't understand it.

Public Strike instances didn't do anything with accessability. Emboldened mode exposed some insecure people who'd rather leave groups than play with Emboldened on even if you oneshot all bosses it does nothing.

Slapping a DPS-Tank-Heal LFR into the game won't achieve anything, because that's not how GW2 works. It was mentioned a few times already that WoW's premade groups are the only thing that worth taking ideas from and even the changes that could be done are probably not worth it as the improvements would be miniscule.

Another issue with such system is.. how do you make sure the person joining in plays their role? In WoW if I queue as a Blood DK I only have Tank as an option and as a Blood DK I can't be anything else. GW2 doesn't have this system, in GW2 most elite specs have multiple builds, some can be DPS, healer or boonDPS. You'd have to lock people into their builds to ensure that noone joins as a healer, then swaps to DPS, but that throws out the flexibility of groups. And don't even mention ensuring that a person who joined as a quickDPS does actually run QuickDPS build.

[Sobx.1758]

9 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

It's not unreasonable to think that some kind of auto matchmaking feature would make team content more accessible for some people.

It's not unreasonable to think it wouldn't add anything more than the current lfg where anyone can put any requirements they want to, including no requirements at all. That includes any wishes about classes and roles.

9 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

It's not even unreasonable to look to other games to see what the pro's cons are for such systems.

The same way it's not unreasonable to point out what's problematic about proposed ideas, while at the same time I think it is rather unreasonable to avoid responding to those concerns just to repeat that people are somehow "against improvement" or w/e was repeatedly said in this thread. I'd say it's also pretty unreasonable to repeat "make it better" without saying anything about how you'd want to make it better. And for now it looks like this is all you're doing in this thread?

Edited August 24, 2023 by Sobx.1758

[Killthehealersffs.8940]

7 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

It's not unreasonable to think it wouldn't add anything more than the current lfg where anyone can put any requirements they want to, including no requirements at all. That includes any wishes about classes and roles.

 

It wouldn't be unresonalble ,to use resources in other areas of the game (WvW-PvP) , till you find out a way to fix the problems that other games have solved :P

[Shiyo.3578]

5 hours ago, IAmNotMatthew.1058 said:

how do you make sure the person joining in plays their role? I

How do you do that now?