They get it: new LFG interface

[Venkman]

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/burningcrusade/townhall/lookingforgroup.html

We've added a new icon on your action bar, next to your Social button. This will open a window that prompts you to indicate whether you want to start a group or join one that's already in the process of being assembled. Depending on your selection, either the "Looking for Group" or the "Looking for More" interface appears next. Both interfaces have tabs at the bottom that let you easily switch between the two. The Looking for Group interface allows individual players to be added to a queue of other eligible players looking for a group and matches them up based on preferences they have set. The Looking for More option allows for a group to search out additional members to complete a group.

[lamaros]

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/burningcrusade/townhall/lookingforgroup.html

We've added a new icon on your action bar, next to your Social button. This will open a window that prompts you to indicate whether you want to start a group or join one that's already in the process of being assembled. Depending on your selection, either the "Looking for Group" or the "Looking for More" interface appears next. Both interfaces have tabs at the bottom that let you easily switch between the two. The Looking for Group interface allows individual players to be added to a queue of other eligible players looking for a group and matches them up based on preferences they have set. The Looking for More option allows for a group to search out additional members to complete a group.

Already mentioned in the other thread.

And they don't get it. All comments from Beta users so far is that it has been useless.

I made a big post over at the Forums about it: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=35665728&postId=356728028&sid=1#0

Please go read and Bump it so that it gets fixed in time for the expansion.

[Venkman]

What other thread? And, err, sorry for repeating then :)

[ajax34i]

Go right back to that post and edit the title to "how to make the TBC LFG system better."  I think they think you're talking about the current stones, NOT the beta stuff.

[lamaros]

Go right back to that post and edit the title to "how to make the TBC LFG system better."  I think they think you're talking about the current stones, NOT the beta stuff.

Good idea. Done.

[eldaec]

It's a good idea in theory - but the reason it will be useless is that nobody will use it. They never do. DAoC had exactly this model for lfg flags (additionally you could specify that your lfm flag would only be visible to certain classes), not enough people ever used it to make it work.

The only place I've ever seen a functional interafce for finding groups is in City of Heroes. The system there works not because of the lfg flags, but because the '/who' window can be made to list every player and tell you who is grouped and who isn't. Groups looking for members just pm their way down the ungrouped players, and players looking for groups pm their way down the grouped players.

It's ugly, but it works.

[Dren]

The one in FFXI was decent and used quite often.  That game was so group-centric it was a must actually.  I suppose some people had big enough Shells (guilds) to always have people on to group with, but in our case it wasn't even close.  I think I grouped with the people in my guild twice for like 30 minutes.

You would constantly be in PUG's with people dropping out all over the place.  The LFG tool was a saving grace to keep a party going because, much like EQ, if you lost a good lvl'ing spot, it really hurt.

Man, everytime I think of my time on that game, it just hurts.  It seriously does.

Anyway, most vet players have grown tired of PUG's and thus won't use the LFG system anyway.  It is good they are fixing it though, because it was completely useless before.  Now the few PUG's out there can function better.

Don't get me wrong.  I really really want PUG's to work.  They would fit my play style (casual short time slots) extremely well.  I've just had too many bad experiences with them to bother anymore.  I just find good guilds to join so all the people I group with have at least gone through one layer of filter.  That's worked so far.

[Numtini]

It's just stunning how they can't seem to get the basic idea that people don't like automatching.

[Simond]

A very simple fix would be to default auto-match to off, instead of on.

As for LFG systems in general, EQ patched a decent one in about, oh, four years into the game and it worked...eventually. The devs just need to bludgeon people into using it (add it to the tips on the loading screen, put it in the FAQ, add it to the tutorial, make it the stock first answer to the 'Why can't I find a group?' question on the boards, etc). It just needs to overcome player inertia.

[Venkman]

They get it in the sense that they're trying.

And yes, auto-matching should default to being off.

Also, they shouldn't restrict LFG too much by level. Look, if a level 60 wants to run a group of level 40s through Zul'Furrak, they're going to anyway. Just let the players make the choice.

Finally, yes, add a Comments field. DAoC had this, and I think EQ's did as well.

That players won't use this initially is fact. That they may eventually is it depends on how useful it is (read: not Meeting Stones).

I do wish they would make it cross-server though, for some not-so-important instances. They obviously have the infrastructure for it. Keeping it to the non-so-important places, those places that are basically there just to help people finish quests, would prevent different economies from getting impacted wierdly by the advances players make.

[Furiously]

EQII and COH did the LFG thing right.

[Lum]

Does anyone know if the LFG tool is expansion-only or will be available to everyone upon release?

[SurfD]

They get it in the sense that they're trying.

And yes, auto-matching should default to being off.

Also, they shouldn't restrict LFG too much by level. Look, if a level 60 wants to run a group of level 40s through Zul'Furrak, they're going to anyway. Just let the players make the choice.

Finally, yes, add a Comments field. DAoC had this, and I think EQ's did as well.

That players won't use this initially is fact. That they may eventually is it depends on how useful it is (read: not Meeting Stones).

I do wish they would make it cross-server though, for some not-so-important instances. They obviously have the infrastructure for it. Keeping it to the non-so-important places, those places that are basically there just to help people finish quests, would prevent different economies from getting impacted wierdly by the advances players make.

Another thing to consider: never underestimate the tenacity of modders.  If their LFG system is at least passably functional, i am willing to bet that some clever mod designer will tweak the thing to add in extra features that may smooth things out.

[Ironwood]

Does anyone know if the LFG tool is expansion-only or will be available to everyone upon release?

It has to be for everyone, surely.

[Numtini]

That's one of those, is Blizzard good or evil questions. Obviously an LFG system has to be there for everyone, but that didn't stop EQ from forcing you to buy an expansion pack to get it.

[Ironwood]

 

[Glazius]

EQII and COH did the LFG thing right.

EQ2 has global, player-searchable LFG?

When was this?

--GF

[Simond]

Another thing to consider: never underestimate the tenacity of modders.  If their LFG system is at least passably functional, i am willing to bet that some clever mod designer will tweak the thing to add in extra features that may smooth things out.

And then, six months dpwn the line, Blizzard will roll the modded funtionality into the base UI.

[Ironwood]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Numtini]

EQ2 has global, player-searchable LFG?

When was this?

EQ2 has had a LFG system since launch. It allows parties to search for members, with lots of filtering, but It doesn't allow individuals to search for parties. Also has one channel for each 10 levels that are mainly about LFG, but don't (generally) get spammed with the stupid because they're not global (they only apply to 10 levels of players) and there are other options for the less intellectually minded to express themselves.

I think people are right about COH though. I think that's the one with the best LFG system that I've seen. And everyone seems to use it, I found I got invites all the time by just flagging myself.

[Venkman]

What CoH (and GW) also do somewhat right is the ability to join a group rather quickly. None of this run-around-the-world nonsense, making people wait.

[Phred]

What CoH (and GW) also do somewhat right is the ability to join a group rather quickly. None of this run-around-the-world nonsense, making people wait.

Wow has 1 upped this by changing the old meeting stones into player summoning stones. You only need 2 people at the instance to use them too. One clicks the stone the other clicks the portal the stone creates and presto the player is summoned to your feet.

[Oban]

Anyone want to bet how long this feature will last?

Instant access for Horde players that want to raid Stormwind and Alliance players that want to raid Orgrimar.

[Simond]

Anyone want to bet how long this feature will last?

Instant access for Horde players that want to raid Stormwind and Alliance players that want to raid Orgrimar.

Idea: Put an npc with a stun/interrupt-type ability next to the RC/Stockades stones, and have channelling the summon inside an enemy city flag you for pvp & aggro any guards nearby.

[Phred]

Anyone want to bet how long this feature will last?

Instant access for Horde players that want to raid Stormwind and Alliance players that want to raid Orgrimar.

Idea: Put an npc with a stun/interrupt-type ability next to the RC/Stockades stones, and have channelling the summon inside an enemy city flag you for pvp & aggro any guards nearby.

Merely being in an enemy city already flags you for PvP. This is a non-issue except maybe on servers where orgrimar or if are ghost towns. i.e. not very many.

[Xanthippe]

Maybe it's just my server, but there's not a whole lot of raiding of Orgrimmar or Stormwind that goes on.  When it does, at most it's a minor inconvenience.

[Simond]

Hmm, random tangential thought - the honour grind is going away, so...what happens to dishonourable kills?

[Jayce]

EQ2 has had a LFG system since launch. It allows parties to search for members, with lots of filtering, but It doesn't allow individuals to search for parties. Also has one channel for each 10 levels that are mainly about LFG, but don't (generally) get spammed with the stupid because they're not global (they only apply to 10 levels of players) and there are other options for the less intellectually minded to express themselves.

Interesting idea.  A "World General" channel might do wonders for clearing up the LFG spam.

[Phred]

Hmm, random tangential thought - the honour grind is going away, so...what happens to dishonourable kills?

Currently unimplemented in beta. The devs say they are watching how it goes and will decide later whether to put them in or not. Currently they say they would like to leave them out.

[Oban]

Yeehaw, no DK's means I have something to do with that Rogue alt I never play.

Most important question, is Mankirk's Wife flagged for pvp in the expansion?

[jpark]

EQII and COH did the LFG thing right.

I think the moderators will support me on this - DON'T EVER USE COH IN THE SAME SENTENCE AS EQ2!!!

SB and EQ2 works though ;) 

But CoH has far more class :)

[Furiously]

EQII and COH did the LFG thing right.

I think the moderators will support me on this - DON'T EVER USE COH IN THE SAME SENTENCE AS EQ2!!!

SB and EQ2 works though ;) 

But CoH has far more class :)

If by class, you mean grind, then yea I'll agree.

[Venkman]

Speaking of CoH, I really wish more companies would emulate some of the stuff Cryptic did. Of course, in wishing that I wish CoH was more successful so that companies had no choice but to take notice.

[Typhon]

I really wish Cryptic would get their head out of their ass and pay attention to what Blizzard did in terms of time and/or effort per level.

I know y'all are tired of hearing the 'grind!' comment, believe I'm tired of typing/reading it myself.  Similarly, reading people talking about how wonderful CoX with all it's faults, is also getting a bit old.

[Numtini]

COX frustrates me incredibly. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. I can't help thinking that if they had Guild Wars'd it, no world at all just instances and free to play, they'd be in money hats. As a sub game. It's good but not compelling.

BTW can anyone confirm that they did or did not get the LFG system right in BC?