Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Rework LFG tool


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, IAmNotMatthew.1058 said:

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.

Here is my problem ... people thinking of 'issues' that ANY of these systems have or comments like "it's not broken so don't fix it" are reasons to shut down the discussion and pretend there isn't value in having better LFG tools. 

How do you make sure the person joining in plays their role? You can't ... even if the person is completely decked out in gear and traits to play that role. The game can only go so far to match people. Players have to do the rest. If you are matchmade to a "tank" and that tank is garbage, you find a new tank ... like ANY OTHER game you would play with match making. It's not a 100% guarantee when you are match made that you get the best teams ever or people that know what they are doing, in ANY game. Matchmaking isn't a silver bullet to wins, but it does give players options and removes a barrier for some players in team content. 

I mean, GW2 COULD have a system like you describe ... if Anet wanted it to. Anet can do whatever they like. They can change the game IF they determine the benefits are worth the cost to do it. They want all Scourges that join teams to be healers? Anet could make that happen ... 

Edited by Obtena.7952
  • Confused 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Here is my problem ... people thinking of 'issues' that ANY of these systems have isn't a reason for people to shut down the discussion and pretend there isn't value in having better LFG tools. 

How do you make sure the person joining in plays their role? You can't ... even if the person is completely decked out in gear and traits to play that role. The game can only go so far to match people. Players have to do the rest. If you are matchmade to a "tank" and that tank is garbage, you find a new tank ... like ANY OTHER game you would play with match making. It's not a 100% guarantee when you are match made that you get the best teams ever or people that know what they are doing, in ANY game. Matchmaking isn't a silver bullet but it does give players options and removes a barrier for some players. 

I mean, GW2 COULD have a system like you describe ... if Anet wanted it to. Anet can do whatever they like. They can change the game IF they determine the benefits are worth the cost to do it. They want all Scourges that join teams to be healers? Anet could make that happen ... 

Yea and now you block that guy write bad tank as a nick name.

You can never get him in the group again since you see the nick name when he joins and can kick him.

With your auto que lfg you could get the same guy next wing or even again if your unlucky ( because tanks are few and far betwen) since you know he weill keep queing as tank. 

Do you then 

1 sit down and tell the group hey I know this tank he is crap

2 leave

3 wait for him to screw up and kick having to wait for a tank again

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Linken.6345 said:

Yea and now you block that guy write bad tank as a nick name.

You can never get him in the group again since you see the nick name when he joins and can kick him.

With your auto que lfg you could get the same guy next wing or even again if your unlucky ( because tanks are few and far betwen) since you know he weill keep queing as tank. 

Do you then 

1 sit down and tell the group hey I know this tank he is crap

2 leave

3 wait for him to screw up and kick having to wait for a tank again

Sure that might be a scenario that happens IF that's how the system would work. Somehow, you didn't imagine the scenario where an auto Qing system could cross reference block lists and prevent the scenario you talk about, probably because you simply want to argue autoQing is a bad idea and can't work in GW2. Again, you target an issue with something, pretend it's insurmountable and imply that insurmountable issue is a reason we shouldn't have it? Weird conclusion. 

Edited by Obtena.7952
  • Confused 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Here is my problem ... people thinking of 'issues' that ANY of these systems have or comments like "it's not broken so don't fix it" are reasons to shut down the discussion and pretend there isn't value in having better LFG tools. 

No, pointing out issues is part of the discussion, not an atttempt to shut down anything. You might think it's shutting down discussion if you understand those issues are real and you don't know how to solve them, but... that's why those issues are problematic in the first place. Nice "no you" attempt though after what was written to you on the previous page/s. 😅

-proposed addition to the game
But this might not achieve anything because this and that.
-stop trying to shut down discussion!
????

Seriously, how is pointing out problems with what you want implemented somehow "shutting down discussion"? Avoidance of the pointed out problems is avoidance of discussion because at that point you just want to repeat "do it not matter what". Pointing out issues with what you -or anyone else proposes- is an attempt to come up with an actual improvement to the system instead of implementing another system that's flawed in similar ways or worse.

10 hours ago, The Boz.2038 said:

If the mechanisms of ascertaining that are the same as now, why should the system exist?

It's basically this 👆. If the response to "how to you check anything" is "just do what you're already doing today anyways" then what even is the point of coming up with the ""new system"" which in its core remains the same?

Edited by Sobx.1758
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Sure that might be a scenario that happens IF that's how the system would work. Somehow, you didn't imagine the scenario where an auto Qing system could cross reference block lists and prevent the scenario you talk about, probably because you simply want to argue autoQing is a bad idea and can't work in GW2. Again, you target an issue with something, pretend it's insurmountable and imply that insurmountable issue is a reason we shouldn't have it? Weird conclusion. 

Well since blocking now dont prevent anyone from joining somehow magicaly it will do when your autoquing get into the game?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Linken.6345 said:

Well since blocking now dont prevent anyone from joining somehow magicaly it will do when your autoquing get into the game?

That's a rather nonsensical question to ask, considering Anet's has complete control over being able to create a cross referencing function for autoQing and block lists to prevent that scenario if that was indeed a problem to begin with ... as opposed to claiming it would need to be 'magic' for this to happen. 

So no, it's not 'magic'. It's just a matter of creating code if that was something that was part of their implementation ... you know, like how the WHOLE of the game is made in the first place 🙄

Again, pretending issues are insurmountable leading to some absurd conclusion that LFG improvements aren't worth considering borders on comedic, even though those SAME issues currently exist and we deal with them. 

Edited by Obtena.7952
  • Confused 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Again, pretending issues are insurmountable leading to some absurd conclusion that LFG improvements aren't worth considering

But that's not what it is. If you want to claim these issues are somehow nonissues, go back to the beginning of the thread, see what was pointed out and address it with your ideas of solutions (except last time you were asked about it, you tried to wiggle your way out of it by saying "it's not about you flying your flag on the idea" or w/e). Otherwise stop pretending you cherry picking one problem somehow solves everything.
Your attempts to stay right outside of any meaningful conversation while keeping some hollow appearance you're taking part in it by -again- making some weird claims about people somehow being "against improvements"(??) are rather obvious by now.

3 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

SAME issues currently exist and we deal with them. 

That's right. Those same issues that these changes are somehow supposed to target and yet they'll remain unchanged. Not much of an "improvement" then.

Edited by Sobx.1758
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2023 at 8:37 AM, 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. 

It's a matter of how people play now in other more popular content. With random people, drop in, drop out. You show up without much complication in a completely "PUBLIC" fashion and just go in. keeping that feeling and fact in play while understanding strikes raids and fractals need more structure, that's where auto Que needs to come in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zyhot.9851 said:

The same way you do now. :^)

Yes, we trust the person who joined into a group looking for a HFB is playing a HFB. The issue is - something seems to be ignored often - is that if a queue system is introduced what will prevent me from queuing as a HFB, but swapping to cFB when I get into a group? I can play multiple roles as an elite spec, queue as one, but swap to the other.
We all know that the queue times would be long for DPS, since DPS is the simplest to play and gear. Addig a minimum to certain stats to play certain roles would be nothing more than a bandaid fix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tbh the only reasonable way of improving the LFG is to replace class icons for dps/quick/alac/qheal/aheal icons.

When a player joins a group they get a pop-up on what role they want to join as.

Party/squad UI gets a toggle that shows their roles instead of classes.

Bonus points for kicked players being unable to rejoin the group.

Bonus points for combining dead LFG catagories together.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Zyhot.9851 said:

Tbh the only reasonable way of improving the LFG is to replace class icons for dps/quick/alac/qheal/aheal icons.

When a player joins a group they get a pop-up on what role they want to join as.

Party/squad UI gets a toggle that shows their roles instead of classes.

Bonus points for kicked players being unable to rejoin the group.

Bonus points for combining dead LFG catagories together.

 

...okay, and what about roles? How do you LF a handkite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interface of it is pretty bad.

You can't really auto queue.

I just want to queue and do dungeons for gear rewards, and the one I want to do is either a ghost town or the people in it want top shelf players.  So I'm going to be honest with you guys and say that as a casual player, I never use it.  I just right-click commander tags and join the squad, and if I can't, I just follow them.

Even when I do try to engage in any multiple player focused content, it's so anti-social and dead quiet.  Makes me think I'm playing Wow.  Then, I start thinking about how less this game is compared to those types of games.  Better transmog and more defined roles.  You could list lile 20 more things, and I don't want to do that.

I'm rambling here, but I agree with the LFG being terrible.

Edited by PeterRedhill.3182
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, The Boz.2038 said:

...okay, and what about roles? How do you LF a handkite?

The same way you do now. If you expect anet to make a dedicated LFG system so that people could queue up specifically as tower mesmer and nothing else then gz on your troll!

 

Could add general 'utility' role if you really need one. But come on, what do you think the handkite guy will do in all the previous encounters in the same raid? Hold the kite gizmo? :^)

Edited by Zyhot.9851
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Boz.2038 said:

So why invest in a new system?

To streamline player experience for literally anything else in the LFG that is not a single edge case role for a single encounter in a single raid.

Handkite isnt even the designer intended way to do the encounter.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Zyhot.9851 said:

To streamline player experience for literally anything else in the LFG that is not a single edge case role for a single encounter in a single raid.

Handkite isnt even the designer intended way to do the encounter.

Yes and then you have the lfg with dps (hk)

auto que guy 1 join.

Hi dps

Commander can you handkite?

guy no

Commander kick

auto que 2 join

hi dps

Commander can you handkite?

guy no

repeate that times 100 since that is what will happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Linken.6345 said:

Yes and then you have the lfg with dps (hk)

auto que guy 1 join.

Hi dps

Commander can you handkite?

guy no

Commander kick

auto que 2 join

hi dps

Commander can you handkite?

guy no

repeate that times 100 since that is what will happen.

Just like how it is right now.

idk why you keep insisting that squad should have a handkite for the entire raid instead of commander asking a dps to handkite for one fight.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Zyhot.9851 said:

Just like how it is right now.

idk why you keep insisting that squad should have a handkite for the entire raid instead of commander asking a dps to handkite for one fight.

You get a HK for Deimos, that HK plays DPS on the bosses leading up to Deimos. HK requires a specific build, it's not just something you can do as a DPS.
If you want to make changes to Raid LFG it would be helpful if you had even a bit of experience with Raids.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, IAmNotMatthew.1058 said:

You get a HK for Deimos, that HK plays DPS on the bosses leading up to Deimos. HK requires a specific build, it's not just something you can do as a DPS.
If you want to make changes to Raid LFG it would be helpful if you had even a bit of experience with Raids.

I dont know why you all are struggling to understand that you would find the hand kite literally exactly the same way you find it right now. But fine. You're right. LFG cannot ever be changed because you have one hyper specific role in raids. And for that every single other game mode must suffer too.

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zyhot.9851 said:

I dont know why you all are struggling to understand that you would find the hand kite literally exactly the same way you find it right now. But fine. You're right. LFG cannot ever be changed because you have one hyper specific role in raids. And for that every single other game mode must suffer too.

...except no one's saying LFG can't/shouldn't be changed - we're just saying it shouldn't be changed for the worse

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...