Any plan to make LFG more useful?
By
Father Xmas,
Posted on: 2012-03-19 24:14 in Suggestions and Ideas
<insert standard pointing to suggestions board comment>
<insert links to previous discussions about if LFG is WAI>
Father Xmas - Level 50 Ice/Ice Tanker - Victory
$725 and $1350 parts lists --- My guide to computer components
Tempus unum hominem manet
Thanks for your extremely helpful comment.
However, this is not a suggestion, nor is it a dead issue. This is a system that is not working and needs to be fixed. We've had it for nearly a year now, and it's never done its job properly.
I don't see anything wrong with reviving the call to make this tool function in a way that will actually be helpful to players.
You've made an incorrect assumption. In your words: "LFG IS NOT WORKING AS INTENDED."
The tool functions as it was intended to function.
Players don't use the tool as it was intended to function.
Players not using it as it was intended to function doesn't mean that it doesn't function as intended.
If you've figured out how to force a change in how players use the tools then you are way ahead of the game.
It IS a suggestion as you have 4 numbered points and one alternative showing, using your words "WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN".
Father Xmas never said it was a dead issue. That's you putting words in his mouth.
The LFG tool does work correctly if players use it as it was intended.
If you try to drive a nail in a piece of wood with the shaft of a hammer and it takes a really long time it isn't because the hammer isn't working as intended, it's because you aren't using it as it was intended.
Ron White has a line that sums up my feelings about people not using things as they were intended then complaining that it isn't working as intended, but it would likely get the post deleted.
If the game spit out 20 dollar bills people would complain that they weren't sequentially numbered. If they were sequentially numbered people would complain that they weren't random enough.
Black Pebble is my new hero.
Is there even a suggestion forum anymore?
Can non-VIPs post on it?
That could be a problem, which is why suggestions end up here.
And yes, this is a gameplay issue because the LFG function didn't make anything easier. It just added an extra step to the same process.
Things could be done a lot better if they had a little more creativity and logic to go with it.
Well he is VIP, not that it matters as the Suggestion Forum is open to all.
Father Xmas - Level 50 Ice/Ice Tanker - Victory
$725 and $1350 parts lists --- My guide to computer components
Tempus unum hominem manet
It took that other large MMO out there, starting with 'World of', a lot of time to get their LFG tool right. Once they did figure it out, it became instantly very popular. Their solutions will not work here though.
If the complaint is that players aren't using it as intended, then it was designed around the wrong assumptions.
I have now been playing for 3 months and my highest level toon is 35. I have not ever used the LFG tool. Therefore I have no clue how it works (It's not in the tutorial either) so I will not comment on anything specific. I have played on teams a lot, but always though /chat and global channels. My point is that for me at the moment the LFG could as well not exist and I would not notice a difference.
A few things that the other MMO had to do before their LFG tool became popular.
- Clear indication of the length of the queue and estimated waiting time.
- Allow you to continue what you were doing until the group is complete, and have you continue where you left of after the group is finished.
- Allow you to select your role/playstyle.
- Keep the time you have to wait to reasonable levels. 15 minutes seems to be about the maximum before the effectiveness becomes less.
The one thing they didn't figure out yet, is how to queue one alt, and then continue playing on another while waiting.
Quote:
I don't even know where the suggestion forums is, but the only ones I know that are all access are the gameplay issues and player questions forums.|
Originally Posted by Father Xmas
Well he is VIP, not that it matters as the Suggestion Forum is open to all.
|
I can't even find the suggestion forum from the forum directory.
Quote:
1) It didn't take them a long time to "figure it out".|
Originally Posted by RogerWilco
It took that other large MMO out there, starting with 'World of', a lot of time to get their LFG tool right. Once they did figure it out, it became instantly very popular. Their solutions will not work here though.
|
Like most people(people in general), they just didn't see a problem with "the way things were" for a long time. When they finally did, it wasn't hard to come up with the solution they did, just took forever to finally put it in practice due to priorities being elsewhere(this game is notorious for this too).
2) It will likely work here. The grouping systems are practically identical in both games, "form structured group with specific number of people to enter specific instance".
3) City of Heroes is stupidly cryptic(pun intended) with ubiquitous systems.
The developers did not make anything intentionally obvious or simple to understand. Anything that is simple to understand is only so because we are either used to MMOs or it would be obvious to a 5 year old child.
Of course, nobody uses the LFG system as intended. It's frequently buggy, not simple and obvious and just plain a PITA.
Also, people don't like grouping with random others when they're after "quick rewards". They want to be in control and reliably get the reward with minimal aggravation.
Even that competitor has to deal with this, though they have made content easier when done through the "LFG function" they have in order to facilitate the "we'll take anybody" mentality that such a system needs.
This game doesn't make content easier(while still just as rewarding especially) with the LFG function. It just makes forming groups more questionable.
Thus, nobody uses it if they have a choice.
Quote:
Well it's under English > For Fun! ALL ACCESS: Suggestions and Ideas (since lancing most suggestions and ideas has become something of a sport).
|
Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
I don't even know where the suggestion forums is, but the only ones I know that are all access are the gameplay issues and player questions forums.
I can't even find the suggestion forum from the forum directory. |
Father Xmas - Level 50 Ice/Ice Tanker - Victory
$725 and $1350 parts lists --- My guide to computer components
Tempus unum hominem manet
Quote:
This.|
Originally Posted by RogerWilco
If the complaint is that players aren't using it as intended, then it was designed around the wrong assumptions..
|
Unless you (Father Xmas) are contending that they designed and implemented a tool that they never intended people to use, it must not be working as intended.
If you've ever played a game with a well-designed LFG system, you know that players are very willing to use it. If you've never played such a game, you have no business commenting on the utility of such a feature, or even on whether such a system is good or bad.
The problem is in the tool, not the players.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Haecceity
If you've ever played a game with a well-designed LFG system, you know that players are very willing to use it. If you've never played such a game, you have no business commenting on the utility of such a feature, or even on whether such a system is good or bad.
The problem is in the tool, not the players. |
And you shouldn't try to speak for the people that play this game.
It was the Players that demanded the ability to form closed teams/leagues be added to the LFG system. It was not originally included in the LFG design.
If the devs were to decide to remove our ability to form closed teams/leagues, players will just go back to recruiting people for trials in places like Pocket D and RWZ, or Atlas Park, before forming complete teams and joining the queue.
End result, you still won't be able to join their teams from the queue.
The problem isn't with the tool, nor is it with the players. The problem is assuming that our player base doesn't want control over who they team with.
We will control who we team with.
Quote:
Please point to any part of any of my posts that requests the removal of the ability to form a closed team.|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
And you shouldn't try to speak for the people that play this game.
It was the Players that demanded the ability to form closed teams/leagues be added to the LFG system. It was not originally included in the LFG design. If the devs were to decide to remove our ability to form closed teams/leagues, players will just go back to recruiting people for trials in places like Pocket D and RWZ, or Atlas Park, before forming complete teams and joining the queue. End result, you still won't be able to join their teams from the queue. The problem isn't with the tool, nor is it with the players. The problem is assuming that our player base doesn't want control over who they team with. We will control who we team with. |
In fact, let me quote myself:
"2. The "lock" button should actually lock the team so that the queue does not add more players no matter what. Add the option to unlock it if the team falls below minimum capacity. I'm not entirely clear what this button does now."
Please try to at least read the original post before adding your comments. Thanks.
Quote:
What you don't seem to grasp is that nearly all of the player base prefers using closed teams and forming up before entering the queue.|
Originally Posted by Haecceity
Please try to at least read the original post before adding your comments. Thanks.
|
Your ideas won't change anything unless the ability to form closed teams is removed from the LFG feature.
I was a little disappointed that the LFG feature wasn’t used more during this last double xp weekend. I can understand the want to have specific functions filled in a team rather than leave it to chance that the LFG tool spits out a “challenging” combination of ATs.
So here’s my suggestion for how an LFG tool could work a little better:
1. Someone who wants to start (lead) an event (trial / iTrial / SF / TF) will open the tool to form a group and select an event.
2. For each slot, the following are chosen: a level range (default: min for event to 53), AT (default: open to all. Otherwise, choose as many AT’s as wanted), and a space for a short comment (healer, dps, invul tank, whatever).
3. After that’s set up, click a button to post the event.
People who’re looking for a team will see all the events that their toon qualifies for. Each listing will show who’s leading, leader’s level, the event, AT being looked for, and comment. The list can be sorted by event, minimum level, or AT. The list could be filtered so that anyone on your ignore list isn't shown. A button would be available for each listing to join the group.
The leader would need to see which person filled which slot. The event could be started at any time after the minimum requirements of the event are met.
Why do it this way? I find that some people who’re LFT don’t like blind invites. Then there’s the chaos of multiple tells and trying to control the team makeup. And some people don’t like to bother having that conversation. I left out the ability to choose specific power sets as it got too complicated, which is bad if you’re trying to get people to try something new. If a TA defender signs up for a slot with an "emp/pain only" note on it, that’s a reason for getting kicked.
I vote No!
Honestly, there are players out there that I do not want to team with and I should not be forced to team with them when I am assembling a team.
It's bad enough that leagues usually have to be formed with groups of strangers, that's one of the main reasons I do not enjoy league play. I really don't want to have to deal with that on a team level.
"Not working as intended" Is NOT a reason to ditch or revamp something.
If people go out and buy ballpoint pens and only use them to rewind cassette tapes, then it doesn't matter, and you shouldn't change your product if it's selling as is.
Fact is people are grouping up in areas in-game, queueing up, and playing endgame content. And this is not necessarily a bad thing.
In my not so humble opinion, A CERTAIN OTHER NAMELESS MMO WHOSE ACRONYM IS A SYNONYM FOR OHMYGOSH, they did it WRONG because there's no connection between you and the other people you're grouping with. Sure you can blaze through dungeons faster but it's NOT FUN.
In this game it certainly is fun.
you could have it all
My empire of dirt
I will let you down
I will make you <3
Quote:
I don't think it's said anywhere that the use of the LFG tool was mandatory to run anything. I view it as a way to facilitate forming a random pug. It's sort of a given that using it would net you random people. Maybe the ignore lists could be integrated in a way to avoid certain players...
|
Originally Posted by Remaugen
Honestly, there are players out there that I do not want to team with and I should not be forced to team with them when I am assembling a team.
|
Quote:
You can't run trials without joining the LFG queue.
|
Originally Posted by Molehill
I don't think it's said anywhere that the use of the LFG tool was mandatory to run anything. I view it as a way to facilitate forming a random pug. It's sort of a given that using it would net you random people. Maybe the ignore lists could be integrated in a way to avoid certain players...
|
Quote:
I don't think having a tool to help people form pug teams should preclude anyone from pre-forming a team the old way (also locking it so no one else can get in) and then joining the queue. The idea is to better control how those random (not pre-formed) teams would form so there's a better chance for success.
|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
You can't run trials without joining the LFG queue.
|
Quote:
Indeed. They should take away the ability to enter the queue as a team and make it pure PUG land (after all, if you're on a team you're not really LFG). And anyone who didn't want to do that could always rely on Dark Astoria for their Incarnate advancement. |
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
You can't run trials without joining the LFG queue.
|
Of course, at this point that'll never happen.
Goodbye may seem forever
Farewell is like the end
But in my heart's the memory
And there you'll always be
-- The Fox and the Hound
Quote:
The only thing is that the people that prefer simply joining the queue and waiting will still have the same issue as now because most people refuse to give up the ability to create pre-formed private teams.
|
Originally Posted by Molehill
I don't think having a tool to help people form pug teams should preclude anyone from pre-forming a team the old way (also locking it so no one else can get in) and then joining the queue. The idea is to better control how those random (not pre-formed) teams would form so there's a better chance for success.
|
Quote:
I'm not seeing why they would have to give up that ability. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. |
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
... most people refuse to give up the ability to create pre-formed private teams.
|
I have a 3-person SG. All my grouping for TF's and trials is done with random people. I can't do anything but speculate on the nature of private teams and taking that away shouldn't be on the table. What I do see is the help channel and zone broadcast channels (to a lesser degree) are a bunch of LFT and LFM requests.
The intent of my suggestion is that the leaders that are LFM'ing could post what they're looking for and the people that are LFT'ing can see what's available that they qualify for. Thus, streamlining the process of getting those two "people" onto a group without spamming the help channel (or watching it, wondering if you missed something when you turned away for a minute) and typing out private inquiries. And maybe not having to bother with the spamming, the private tells, the blind invites, etc. lowers the barrier for more people to start teams rather than wait for them.
Then that team/league could join whatever queue they want, or not and run off to start a story arc. Maybe those features are worked into the queue framework. Whatever.
Currently I believe the queue is blind to the make up of the team and will push forward to start an event even if the teams aren't decently made. I'm simply suggesting giving players some control over the creation of those teams.
Or you could just, you know, TALK to the people who are "LFM" and ask what they're looking for.
No amount of improvements on the LFG system is going to replace socializing with other people.
you could have it all
My empire of dirt
I will let you down
I will make you <3
Quote:
And make the rest of the team wait while the team lead socializes individually with every person who may or may not be interested in what's being run? |
Originally Posted by Party_Kake
Or you could just, you know, TALK to the people who are "LFM" and ask what they're looking for.
No amount of improvements on the LFG system is going to replace socializing with other people. |
I find that having social interaction in a team while the event is being run is worth more. Getting to that point faster would improve the time I spend in the game.
Your point suggests that there's no reason to have anything to help form groups except chat channels. Or that the current system is sufficient. The help channel is the main carrier for teaming requests, several random conversations, and people actually looking for help.
I think there's room for improvement.
I know you might say it's working in theory, but if you look at the way people actually use it, LFG is 100 percent fail. I may be making a lot of assumptions here, but it seems to me that the LFG tool was built with the intention of helping single players form teams. If so,
LFG IS NOT WORKING AS INTENDED.
As things stand now, people advertise for teams, mostly in /help chat (which clutters up the channel for people who actually want help). Then, only after they've gathered a full team, they queue up and go.
So in practice, LFG has not added any "quality of life" benefit because players still have to advertise for groups, still have to be in the same zone to queue, and it's generally impossible to recruit mid-trial if people drop out until you go below the minimum.
To me, this is the opposite of how it should happen. If the LFG interface did its job properly, a single player would queue up for the trials he or she was interested in, then the server would match people up and send them into trials, cutting out the need to advertise.
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN:
1. The queue system should add people to any appropriate team that is below MAXIMUM capacity, not below minimum as it is now.
2. The "lock" button should actually lock the team so that the queue does not add more players no matter what. Add the option to unlock it if the team falls below minimum capacity. I'm not entirely clear what this button does now.
3. I realize there's a concern that people might get badges even though they weren't present for the whole trial. But guess what? People often do trials for reasons other than badges. The correct implementation is to make it so people who join in progress are not eligible for badges. Just make sure you put in a warning dialog when someone has the "join in progress" option enabled: "WARNING: If you join an in-progress event, you will not be eligible for badges. (Continue/Cancel)"
4. Maybe there should be a toggle that lets you wait for a full team. In other words, when the queue is starting a fresh team, it will match up candidates as normal, but if anyone has selected the "full team" option, it will not start the trial until it has collected the maximum number of players.
An alternative to option 4 would be to let it start with the minimum and put the onus on players to advertise for more during the trial, telling people to enable the "join in progress" option.