will anet add lf Q

[Danikat.8537]

5 hours ago, Gop.8713 said:

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making between queueing and lfging . . .

When I queue for spvp I enter the queue and when I'm matched with nine other players who are ready to play the content begins . . .

When I want to do five-player pve content I start the content, put up the lfg and the first four players to join, if any, are the ones I do the content with . . .

The only difference I see is that with spvp the content doesn't start until the queue is full, and that's bc the players themselves are the content, can't really start without them ; p

Are you saying the problem with the lfg system is that players can start before the group is full, or is there another difference I'm not understanding . . ?

I think the difference is partially convenience but mostly psychological.

In Elder Scrolls Online I can join a dungeon with 3 clicks and no communication of any kind with other players, not even reading a group description. I open the group finder, which automatically determines my role (there's a lot of probles with that, but that's another topic for another forum), click the button to join the queue and then click to join the group when one is ready and at that point I'm in the dungeon and ready to go. Likely already going because there's a good chance someone is already running to the first boss (skipping mobs) and no one else has time to say anything because they need to run to catch up. It's likely we'll finish the dungeon before anyone says anything.

So you can do a group activity without really interacting with other players and because the game appears to choose a group for you it implies that the game - the authority in this situation - has confirmed you're capable of doing this and that group should accept you.

In GW2 that authority shifts to the player/s - they set the group requirements (and a new or less confident player may not be willing to assume a group with no requirements specified will genuinely take anyone) and they get to decide if people joining are good enough. That's actually true of ESO as well, groups can - and do - vote kick players, but I don't know how many people realise it can happen until it does. But it's more obvious in GW2 because you have to read their requirements and work out if you qualify - or write your own and work out if the people joining qualify. You also have to get yourself to the map where the dungeon entrance is. When you're used to '3 clicks and you're in' and not needing to think about it beyond that having to choose a group probably does seem like a lot of hassle.

The downside of the queue system is because there's no communication there's also no choice. There's no way to stop high level and low level players being grouped together (except hoping enough people are queuing at the same time that the game can sort them by level), no way to specify if you want to do the dungeon quest or otherwise go slowly or if you want to get in and out as fast as possible because you're already sick of it but desperately want that one drop, no way to say if you want a specific achievement etc. ESO is finally getting a GW2 style grouping tool (in addition to the queue) in the next update and a lot of players are really looking forward to it.

That's the big advantage of the current LFG system to me. I can put a message like "Everyone welcome, I don't remember this path" and know that people who want to guarentee a quick run with no mistakes will avoid it and the people who do join will either be in a similar situation or will be willing to help. Or I can see someone who wants a specific achievement and join because I want it too or I want to help them out, and we know going in everyone joining that group is willing to do any extra steps for that achievement.

[Gop.8713]

Okay so from what you describe just a cultural difference among games I guess. Maybe players who don't want to talk to each other but also players who aren't accustomed to the build variety that makes talking to each other beneficial . . .

But from what others have described it seems the queueing system would be worse? Why do they want this? They'd be forced into these groups with the undesirables? Where's the advantage? Just ignorance of who joins . . ?

Or is it the "undesirables" that want the queue? If that's the case it's an issue on our end as a community . . ?

I'd like to understand why the ppls who want to join queued groups over lfg groups see a benefit, preferably before my lfg fills. Oof, too late. But still . . .

[Vayne.8563]

1 hour ago, TheNurgle.4825 said:

You kind of missed the point. There are players which want to do only instanced content and in GW2 with current LFG tool it is really hard to do that. Imagine that I want to do any dungeon so I either need to create my own group for 1 specific dungeon or/and check all other tabs for dungeons. LFG for strikes kind of work since everyting is in one tab, I just wish they ban raid/strike sellers. LFG for fractals work for T4 since everyone is doing dailies.

 

Also current system of need to be at specific location to enter instanced content is terrible. I have all teleport scrolls so no big deal for me. ANET fixed it for dungeons since we have that new dungeon NPC at Lion's Arch where you can easily enter any dungeon from one place. I would love to see that for strikes.

Dungeons do have a universal entrance now, though.

[Cuks.8241]

9 hours ago, Gop.8713 said:

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making between queueing and lfging . . .

It was not between queue and lfg. It was between queue and public instance for strikes they implemented in IBS and that died in one day because it was just bad. I think it was even removed.

In no way I would ever remove lfg. Any new system should be paralel or complementary to lfg.

[FalanuLachance.4576]

On 10/22/2023 at 9:45 AM, Northstarz.3145 said:

why is there not a LF q in this game. its a big part of why new players dont do the instance stuff in the game. most of the time LFG is selling stuff or they put exp. would u all hardcore people care if they added a Q for instances. 

I don't know why the won't add this, but my experience is that groups found via LFQ-tools - after some time - are treated like garbage-people. Vets will use it to get things done even faster, so newbies are left in the dust again. No gain here.

Just look at games like FFXIV, WoW, ESO etc... Just sayin'.

[TheNurgle.4825]

4 hours ago, Gop.8713 said:

Okay so from what you describe just a cultural difference among games I guess. Maybe players who don't want to talk to each other but also players who aren't accustomed to the build variety that makes talking to each other beneficial . . .

But from what others have described it seems the queueing system would be worse? Why do they want this? They'd be forced into these groups with the undesirables? Where's the advantage? Just ignorance of who joins . . ?

Or is it the "undesirables" that want the queue? If that's the case it's an issue on our end as a community . . ?

I'd like to understand why the ppls who want to join queued groups over lfg groups see a benefit, preferably before my lfg fills. Oof, too late. But still . . .

It is not cultural difference. Imagine that you have limited time to play game now you want to farm some nodes, chest and do other stuff in open with daily instanced content like strikes and fractals. I kind of can do with current system, but I need to set up my group in LFG write down stuff and so on. When group is full I need to teleport to specific location to enter strike/fractals, I need to remember exactly I was before and after I finish instanced content travel back.

Now if I queue for sPvP in GW2, then it works as most ppl want. You choose maps you want to queue and press button to queue. Another interesting thing is that sPvP has more roles/builds than PvE and it works.

[kharmin.7683]

Why not join a guild?

[Cuks.8241]

28 minutes ago, TheNurgle.4825 said:

It is not cultural difference. Imagine that you have limited time to play game now you want to farm some nodes, chest and do other stuff in open with daily instanced content like strikes and fractals. I kind of can do with current system, but I need to set up my group in LFG write down stuff and so on. When group is full I need to teleport to specific location to enter strike/fractals, I need to remember exactly I was before and after I finish instanced content travel back.

Now if I queue for sPvP in GW2, then it works as most ppl want. You choose maps you want to queue and press button to queue. Another interesting thing is that sPvP has more roles/builds than PvE and it works.

Exactly. Thats what I do with spvp. In between maps I play the game. I won't go raiding or play wvw in between because queue times are short (2-3 mins) but just some small tasks in ow. And when the match is done I am exactly where I was and just seamlessly continue. Hey, half of my ow tasks for legendary trinkets were done in between spvp matches.

With daily fractals and strikes I wait in hub until the group is full. There is usually not much more interaction between players as it is before spvp match starts. Usually even much less because for spvp you might want to discuss your and enemy team comp and tactics, for pve its usually all clear. It's just that I am wasting time in hubs waiting. Yeah it's just a few minutes and 2 extra loading screens. But its a complete waste of time. It's not even related to player communication, they could just add an ability to chat with players that also wait in queue with you. I've played games that do that and even enable chatting during loading screens (probably not possible here).

[NikeEU.7690]

On 10/22/2023 at 3:45 AM, Northstarz.3145 said:

why is there not a LF q in this game. its a big part of why new players dont do the instance stuff in the game. most of the time LFG is selling stuff or they put exp. would u all hardcore people care if they added a Q for instances. 

The reason there is no auto-group finder queue is because most people don't want to play with the sort of players who would use it or who would need it to get a group. 

[Danikat.8537]

You know you can use the LFG menu from anywhere right? You don't have to go to the hub map until your group is ready to start.

On several occasions I've used the LFG menu to find a Fractal group while I was in Rata Sum, then I go to LA when we're about to start and hit the button to enter Fractals as soon as I load into LA. Ok you might not want to do that if you have a slow connection and your group could be kept waiting for you to load in, but it's usually not a problem for me.

Admittedly for a lot of things it's not worth trying to do something else while you wait because the group will probably fill up in the time it takes to get to the hub, but you can still find a group or advertise one first, then go to the hub so you're not standing around waiting.

[Jedrik.3109]

Imagine wanting to play with others. 

[Schimmi.6872]

1 hour ago, TheNurgle.4825 said:

It is not cultural difference. Imagine that you have limited time to play game now you want to farm some nodes, chest and do other stuff in open with daily instanced content like strikes and fractals. I kind of can do with current system, but I need to set up my group in LFG write down stuff and so on. When group is full I need to teleport to specific location to enter strike/fractals, I need to remember exactly I was before and after I finish instanced content travel back.

Now if I queue for sPvP in GW2, then it works as most ppl want. You choose maps you want to queue and press button to queue. Another interesting thing is that sPvP has more roles/builds than PvE and it works.

The PvP matchmaker doesn't care about roles and builds at all, it's completely on the players to adapt to the group, and we know how badly this often works.

The PvP matchmaker only cares about rating and classes. Saying it works is very generous , if you look at all the complaints about the matchmaking. 

Also it can't just be easily copied for the PvE instances, as the PvP- matchmaker is built for the PvP team system and not for altering groups and squads. To make it work and not just end as bad / dead as the public mode, it would need a huge rework and some extra features.

[Lucius.2140]

17 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

Okay, I never said there weren't issues with LFG, but that's not what this thread is about. I'm absolutely against the LFR type of LFG because people, rightly, want some control over the groups they get. I want more casual fun groups. I don't want speedrunners in the groups I run, because I'm not one and it would end up causing greater conflict.  For dungeons and stuff, on the rare occasisons I still run them I list casual fun runs, or watching all cut scenes if that's the case.  An LFR wouldn't really have that.

The thread is about suggesting a feature that helps resolves looking for group problems. I mentioned what problems with the current system it helps to fix and who will get improvements with it.

You mention that LFG helps you to get control of the type of people that join your group, thats a valid point and we can also use it in the idea (which is why i mentioned the quee as an additional feature), the user can very well select to open a group with xxx characteristics (including classes or specs, roles, etc.) or quee with xxx characteristiscs.

An example of what could be for a guy that wants to join your group:

USER:

1: Enter the LFG.

2: Defines what content he is looking group for in a panel (one click very visible and visual choices)-> Example: Chose PVE instanced.

3: The choices get bigger and some suboptions appear: DUNGEONS / DRM / STRIKE / FRACTALS /RAIDS.

Player chose dungeons. In a panel (one click very visible and visual choices)

4: Again, the Dungeon option gets bigger, covers all the panel).

An option appear to chose between creating  a group and join/quee for one. Chose quee

5: A list of dungeons appears that are visuals and very visible (with text also obviusly).

At the right side a group of options above the dungeons names appear (story, exploration path 1, 2 ,3, etc.) and on the side of the dungeon name theres a checkbox.

6: Above and right of DUNGEONS  theres a botton: Quee.

Below of it a checkbox (only one option: expert, experienced, training). Another one that puts "order matters" or "not" (to number his quee options).

This checkboxes are optionals, if you join without putting  a thing it becomes aleatory with priority per order and you go to training.

Expert is for people that are searching things like 250 LI.

6: The player choses how he quee and a checkbox or pront allows him to save both his quee and his quee options (so he can do things faster next time, like enter LFG and Quee in one click. This checkbox only happens if he did several dungeon path chose or configured his search.

 

Edit: add in step 4-5 a chose role option with an additional none or other option (for people and content that not requires comp)

[Cuks.8241]

2 hours ago, NikeEU.7690 said:

The reason there is no auto-group finder queue is because most people don't want to play with the sort of players who would use it or who would need it to get a group. 

The same arguments were told in wow before LFD and everyone uses it for heroics afterwards. LFDungeon, not LFRaids.

If you pug you already play with such players. If you dont pug, well this discusion is irrelevant.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

On 10/22/2023 at 8:25 AM, Danikat.8537 said:

That's a problem they're creating for themselves and very simple to solve.

I admit I've been in that situation myself, I couldn't see a group for what I wanted to do and for whatever reason I didn't feel like starting one. I knew it would be simple and it would work but I couldn't get myself to do it. But I know that's entirely my problem (possibly some weirdly specific form of social anxiety?) and not a fault with the LFG tool. Choosing not to use a tool isn't the same as the tool not working.

I've always felt like there is an expectation on the part of random other players that if you start a group, you're expected to know what you're doing.  I find myself reluctant to start a group unless I know the stuff forward and backwards,  As a result, while I might start a group for strikes, I wouldn't for fractals as I really don't know them very well.  I see this mindset with my guild leader when we are doing new strikes.  He only wants to fill out a group with one or more random players if the guild members aren't going to look like we haven't a clue.

While I'm aware that not everyone is going to think this way, I suspect that unwillingness to have random strangers on the internet think poorly of one is a common feeling.  That is, of course, only one of the possibilities why someone doesn't start a group.

[Danikat.8537]

3 minutes ago, IndigoSundown.5419 said:

I've always felt like there is an expectation on the part of random other players that if you start a group, you're expected to know what you're doing.  I find myself reluctant to start a group unless I know the stuff forward and backwards,  As a result, while I might start a group for strikes, I wouldn't for fractals as I really don't know them very well.  I see this mindset with my guild leader when we are doing new strikes.  He only wants to fill out a group with one or more random players if the guild members aren't going to look like we haven't a clue.

While I'm aware that not everyone is going to think this way, I suspect that unwillingness to have random strangers on the internet think poorly of one is a common feeling.  That is, of course, only one of the possibilities why someone doesn't start a group.

When I can get over the problem of inexplicably being unwilling to make a group at all I solve that one by telling everyone from the start. I use a group description like "Path 1. Everyone welcome, I don't remember this one". Then I usually get people joining who are in the same situation - they've never done it before or don't know it well - and we figure it out together, or occasionally someone joins who will tell us what to do.

Admittedly I'm not sure how that would work for strikes where I think it usually takes a new group at least a few attempts to learn the mechanics, but it works for dungeons and Fractals.

(Not quite the same but the weirdest "I don't know what to do but I'll start a group anyway" situation I've had was when people insisted we needed a 3rd commander for Dragon's Stand so I tagged up for the north path but had to ask other people to lead the way to the side events because I can never remember where they are. But even then it worked. I was basically a portable map marker, and other people gave instructions and between us we got it done.)

[Puck.3697]

On 10/22/2023 at 9:26 AM, HnRkLnXqZ.1870 said:

We have tried to change something so many times, never worked. Even if you try anything from the community-perspective. The hardcore players love it the way it is and see no reason to change anything, even if there are only sellers in all tabs. I've stopped making suggestions and complaining because ANet obviously does not care

That's not entirely true though is it. 

The reason people don't think LFG would work, is because the game lacks trinity, and also is balanced around boons being avaliable. 

With the fact the game has no healer tank or dps designated groups, a lfg system would throw players together with 0 coordination to filling anything. 

People do love to talk about WoW having one but ignore the fact WoWs a game with a trinity, and without balance around boons like gw2 does. 

For LFG to work in gw2 ALOT of core things to the game would require changes. In current state the game could throw a entire group of pure dps builds into a raid. 

And to argue "well I could manage it with a randomised group" doesn't mean the super casuals / new players honestly could, they'd wipe continously, groyps would lead no where and overall would likely create a even worse outcome. 

Few wish to discuss changes that would be required to make LFG work, as they'd have to first admit it cant be a stand alone change. 

There are more players without runes / sigil, without meta builds, thrn there are those who have builds to use on the fly to fill roles on demand, 

Edited October 23, 2023 by Puck.3697

[Lucius.2140]

Roles: DPS, tank, healer, specify: example qdps, adps

They can even add them us such.

[TheNurgle.4825]

15 hours ago, Schimmi.6872 said:

The PvP matchmaker doesn't care about roles and builds at all, it's completely on the players to adapt to the group, and we know how badly this often works.

The PvP matchmaker only cares about rating and classes. Saying it works is very generous , if you look at all the complaints about the matchmaking. 

Also it can't just be easily copied for the PvE instances, as the PvP- matchmaker is built for the PvP team system and not for altering groups and squads. To make it work and not just end as bad / dead as the public mode, it would need a huge rework and some extra features.

PvP matchmaker let you choose content and queue for unranked or ranked. Any Matchmaking system in any game just put ppl together based on conditions selected by players. You can take whole PvP matchmaking and add it for dungeons, DRM and fractals with any issue since you do not "alter" groups and squads. For strikes you can also do without any major issues. look every group have same compositions.

 

8 hours ago, Puck.3697 said:

The reason people don't think LFG would work, is because the game lacks trinity, and also is balanced around boons being avaliable.

You actually have "trinity" in GW2. You have predefined roles by players based on game desing. For strikes, fractals, dungeons and DRM you need 1 or 2 healers, 1 or 2 quick or alac provider and rest dps so please stop with GW2 have no trinity. For DRM and dungeons you don't even need to go that far, but almost noone doing it anyway.

[Puck.3697]

3 hours ago, TheNurgle.4825 said:

PvP matchmaker let you choose content and queue for unranked or ranked. Any Matchmaking system in any game just put ppl together based on conditions selected by players. You can take whole PvP matchmaking and add it for dungeons, DRM and fractals with any issue since you do not "alter" groups and squads. For strikes you can also do without any major issues. look every group have same compositions

Pvp also

Auto scales every char from 1 to max making swapping char easier with 0 gear requirements as all installed by the neck thats auto given

Doesnt demand any level of trinity system. 

Isn't reliant on boon uptime. 

While pve has now been balanced to demand all these things without ease of accessibility to builds. 

So why are you making these claims? Lol pvp has no gear system, has no minimum level and doesn't need a tank/ healer. 

PvE actually now does demand this without the accessibility pvp provides. The reason u avoid this question. Is because theres simply no answer where u csn be right. 

Gw2 would need serious modifying in pve content to make this possible. 

The game has no trinity system, there is no offical comps no offical roles everyone is considered a dps in this game. They cant make a lfg system that can puy a group comp together due to those factors lol, theres simply no way the lfg system would know ur anything more then a dps. 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Puck.3697

[Schimmi.6872]

4 hours ago, TheNurgle.4825 said:

PvP matchmaker let you choose content and queue for unranked or ranked. Any Matchmaking system in any game just put ppl together based on conditions selected by players. You can take whole PvP matchmaking and add it for dungeons, DRM and fractals with any issue since you do not "alter" groups and squads. For strikes you can also do without any major issues. look every group have same compositions.

If you just take the PvP matchmaker which is built for the PvP team- and not the group-system, also doesn't work with squads at all and can't alter them, you would just have public mode version 1.1 with a added  teleport to the instance, all the other problems of public mode (which also to some extent are already a problem with the PvP matchmaker too) would still be there.

[Killthehealersffs.8940]

Maybe we should nerf the boons , so we don't need them in order to succeed in groups .

We give them in all classes and people still  believe that they are needed to do old dungeons.

(People can log out and switch classes in pvp . We can use that mechanic and allow people to trivialize with 4 healers encounter like the boneskinner)

 

But I guess we wait for them old gg for 1-2 expansions . The majority will not be affected , by not playing instances.

Spoiler

Edit: create ian in-game poll for the lfg . Ifmore people are againsta the idea, don't do that . My magic ball will say that people will flock with alt accounts to veto it .If that happens they will their shoot theirown foot and if alts accounts will be found , then it would bad to ban them , so hurt them in the selling busines , by rotating the sets in different mods , or split every 2 parts in each modes , with special quarterly monigames to allow you to bypass the need to do pvvp .

 

Edit: or give the choice to people with a blog post and votes .

If people don't it ,  resources will be shyphon from yearly fractal , in order to incorporate the dungeons into fractals and introduce people as soon as possible only to t1 (or every 3 months previous tiers are closed) and scaling them to a pseudo 80(oldWvW keep buffs+outunber+food old combo)(30k HP , 50% all the state), or each 3 min, giving them a random utility unlocked . Or

op

 

 

😛

Edited October 24, 2023 by Killthehealersffs.8940

[LadyKitty.6120]

Replying for 1234th time to same question: the LFR from WoW/FF14 wouldn't work well for GW2 due to special roles many bosses require and due to how the tanking works. Also, due to GW2 not having similar more-or-less fixed stats gear-wise and traits+weapons+utility skills affecting the build a LOT, it'd be hard for LFR to distinguish roles and that people would even theorethically have synergetic enough build for the role. To make LFR work, you'd need to 1. force fixed builds in LFRable content, most likely by forcing HTD trinity and 2. change the mechanics in dungeons and bosses so they could reliably be done by same standard comp and 3. actually actively create new instanced content at decent pace. In other works, it'd require rework of build system and most bosses as a whole. And even then, people likely wouldn't LFR harder content but use old LFG or discord instead.

So, considering those factors, it's extremely unlikely that they'd do the required reworks and even then it has a good chance of people not using it anyway and probably causing an exodus of casual players in the process due to how it'd affect builds. And Kitty personally would quit GW2 for good as it'd take creative buildcrafting and meme builds away.

[Killthehealersffs.8940]

1 hour ago, LadyKitty.6120 said:

Replying for 1234th time to same question: the LFR from WoW/FF14 wouldn't work well for GW2 due to special roles many bosses require and due to how the tanking works. Also, due to GW2 not having similar more-or-less fixed stats gear-wise and traits+weapons+utility skills affecting the build a LOT, it'd be hard for LFR to distinguish roles and that people would even theorethically have synergetic enough build for the role. To make LFR work, you'd need to 1. force fixed builds in LFRable content, most likely by forcing HTD trinity and 2. change the mechanics in dungeons and bosses so they could reliably be done by same standard comp and 3. actually actively create new instanced content at decent pace. In other works, it'd require rework of build system and most bosses as a whole. And even then, people likely wouldn't LFR harder content but use old LFG or discord instead.

So, considering those factors, it's extremely unlikely that they'd do the required reworks and even then it has a good chance of people not using it anyway and probably causing an exodus of casual players in the process due to how it'd affect builds. And Kitty personally would quit GW2 for good as it'd take creative buildcrafting and meme builds away.

1-2)Or we give  the players the raid buff that increase damage , in order not force them into cookie cutter builds or use Berserker. And also give them invisible 50% vulibility stacks to even die from critters.

 

People don't have a problem with dying (Amytas) ,but they don't like to be forced to do more damage to succed(Soo won)

 

(Tanks are not needed, because originally we didn't have ones (raid mechanic with healers + kiters to carry 6 people.

By reducing boons , it will not be mandatory , and instead  we create a code that if previous elite is killed in more than 5 min you get "morale boost" and you are dealth increased damage

Healers are also optional , because downstate and Rez skill will do the job , vanilia style .

But the opinion of Vayne is valid about toxicity . But when people talk about toxicity they mean kicking other for DPS meters issues ? Or the casual are generally toxic ?)

 

Edit:I say not implant it for 1-2 expansion and let the community vote as i typed in the previous post .

If the vote against reach 10% , then the company creates a blogpost to protect herself  and there should some backfires if some1 rigs the elections

Edited October 24, 2023 by Killthehealersffs.8940

[LadyKitty.6120]

51 minutes ago, Killthehealersffs.8940 said:

1-2)Or we give  the players the raid buff that increase damage , in order not force them into cookie cutter builds or use Berserker. And also give them invisible 50% vulibility stacks to even die from critters.

Problem with raid buff: if you don't somewhat standardise the gear, to get soldier's sword Berserker (build Kitty still sees nightmares about) do enough DPS, you'd need to give pretty much 200% buff. And since that buff would be given to everyone as per your suggestion, skilled players with metabuilds would end up doing 100-120k DPS. You can prolly see the problem with that. If you have any ideas on how to realistically actually implement that without causing massive issues, Kitty would like to read them.