Give me a legitimate reason to NOT have a LFD tool.

[Optimism]

Geez

 

Let's just get this LFD tool here already People who don't want to use it will end up using it anyway due to the least path of resistance.

 

Bioware tends to listen to QQers (Hello Operatives!) so this is bound to be in the game sooner or later.

 

At least the forums will be alot more active after this. Can't wait to see threads on how people got kicked for no reason or someone ninja'ed an item, or "THESE WAIT TIMES ARE TOO LONG FOR DPS", Oh and all the nerf HM flashpoint threads too.

[Ataromani]

The 'it destroys the community' argument assumes this game has a community. To be honest if it has I have yet to see it. There is no chat on any of the planets, no one speaks when you do eventually get a group. How the group is formed makes no difference whatsoever, it's what happens within the group and using a LFD tool will have no effect on that.

I think it must depend on the server. I'm on The Red Eclipse, and it seems to have a fairly vibrant community; chat is almost always active, and I've been in a few groups for HQs where people have been happy to chat while killing stuff.

 

I do agree that how the group is formed does not affect the outcome. I can see where people would get that idea from - if you only group with people from your server, people get to know each other and you could potentially tarnish your reputation, - but the fact of the matter is that if people want to 'ninja' items or to trash talk other players, they will do so regardless of whether they'll be around to deal with the consequences or not.

 

The LFD tool, if implemented, can only really affect you if you let it. It's not going to harm anyone, and I remain confident that people will still be interacting within their server communities anyway (particularly since you can't queue for heroic quests).

[Derekloffin]

CAPITALS MAKES ME RIGHT.

 

No friend it doesn't.

 

If it does it's only because the majority would rather use the tool to your method. That wont make your method impossible or make it impossible to get your own groups together on server.

 

 

Changing something from practical to near impossible, or even practical to slightly less practical is... well... a change. So, yeah, it does exactly what he said, changes it for everyone. You can argue the magnitude, but not that a change occurred.

[Taroen]

Sorry I just don't agree. Guess we just have a difference of opinion here.

 

LFD does not cause content to get easier. Just because more people are now running that content doesn't dumb it down, in my opinion.

 

The thing I struggle with the most is why wouldn't one who wants the game to be successful not want as many people as possible to experience all the game has to offer? The exciting and fun part of the game is actually playing it, not in standing around putting a group together. Social aspects of playing are far more SOCIAL when people are actually playing together as a group not in endlessly whispering people to ask them if they want to group or in spamming chat.

 

It's not the fact that more people are running it that ends with it dumbing down. The current system is awful. Anyone should be able to agree to that. There needs to be a new system, for sure. A stand-alone group finder tool apart from the /who list.

 

The part I object to is the instant random aspect, and the cross-server aspect, of the extreme option that some people here are calling for.

 

THAT is what leads to the dumbing down of content.

[darkcerb]

Changing something from practical to near impossible, or even practical to slightly less practical is... well... a change. So, yeah, it does exactly what he said, changes it for everyone. You can argue the magnitude, but not that a change occurred.

 

And on the other side it will change low pop servers and pub side by leaps and bounds.

 

I think i've been fairly clear which change I'm for and people terrified of a cross server tool even with an option to search in server only aren't it.

[Derekloffin]

No, it doesn't. Putting it in all caps doesn't make it true.

 

 

Adding a mcdonalds to a town can change the town for everyone; but the people who want to continue eating only at fine dining establishments can continue to do so, and the macdonalds will have minimal, if any, impact on their dining.

 

Terrible analogy. But, for argument sakes, let's use it. Let's say you add mcdonald's in to a town which can already barely support the fine dining establishment. What's going to happen to said fine dining establishment with the new competition, it will fail, and go under. Meanwhile, the Mcdonald's, which gets all the highway traffic exclusively, doesn't.

So, you end up with a Mcdonald's and no fine dining... hmmm, that worked out well. Yeah, that's a bad analogy too, but still better than the original.

[darkcerb]

It's not the fact that more people are running it that ends with it dumbing down. The current system is awful. Anyone should be able to agree to that. There needs to be a new system, for sure. A stand-alone group finder tool apart from the /who list.

 

The part I object to is the instant random aspect, and the cross-server aspect, of the extreme option that some people here are calling for.

 

THAT is what leads to the dumbing down of content.

 

All that changes with a cross server tool is the volume of groups.

 

How does removing the spamming general stage and moving through the 3 identical hallways to a FP dumb down the content.

 

And please don't answer with an escalation argument of "Next we'll have an instant 50 button"

[PjPablo]

All that changes with a cross server tool is the volume of groups.

 

How does removing the spamming general stage and moving through the 3 identical hallways to a FP dumb down the content.

 

And please don't answer with an escalation argument of "Next we'll have an instant 50 button"

 

This ^

 

Still not getting how people equate quick groups and more people running group content with nerfs to that content.

[uidLucid]

I don't get the idea of "The content gets dumbed down" as a result of a LFD tool. Is there some code snippet that has been released that looks something along the lines of;

 

if(Player.TimeWait(DateTime.Now < DateTime.Now.Minutes(-120)){ this.FlashPoint.NPCAim = this.FlashPoint.NPCAim - 100; PC.Entity(LoadFlashPoint); ) } else{ ( PC.Entity(LoadFlashPoint); ) }

 

More people running dungeons faster doesn't change code, nor does it change AI reaction. The thought process shows not only a lack of programmatic knowledge... but a lack of common sense on the whole.

 

It just makes it easier for those of us with families, careers, lives, etc to experience and enjoy the game we are playing.

 

Either way, I will still continue to pay monthly for the game until I am bored. I will just ignore the content I can't get to without having to spend hours asking PvP chat for a group, which unless you're in a guild, you're screwed...

 

Problem is, I am getting bored already grinding to the end of the game with gear I am forced to buy from the GTM instead of the cool gear you get from Flash Points.

 

Moral of the story; Want to make money like the big kids in the MMO industry? Act like them, mimic them, and take the tried and true ideas they've used, and succeeded in. Want to fail? Listen to the minor majority of your player base.

[Taroen]

All that changes with a cross server tool is the volume of groups.

 

How does removing the spamming general stage and moving through the 3 identical hallways to a FP dumb down the content.

 

And please don't answer with an escalation argument of "Next we'll have an instant 50 button"

 

That's not all that changes, and I think that you know that. It's completely disingenuous of you to even try to say it. I've laid out several times how the instant random aspect and the cross-server aspect changes the dynamic.

 

You take any kind of group creation options completely out of the player's hands with a tool like that, and those groups become the defacto base group for the game. What we REALLY need is a tool that works game-wide and has more comprehensive options, rather than just tossing four random people together and porting them into a flashpoint.

 

I'm not against the porting, either. I am simply against your cross-server instant random thing.

[harpuax]

This ^

 

Still not getting how people equate quick groups and more people running group content with nerfs to that content.

 

So you agree more people should be able to run group content. Suppose the content is too hard for some people, should they not be allowed to run more content as well?

[darkcerb]

That's not all that changes, and I think that you know that. It's completely disingenuous of you to even try to say it. I've laid out several times how the instant random aspect and the cross-server aspect changes the dynamic.

 

You take any kind of group creation options completely out of the player's hands with a tool like that, and those groups become the defacto base group for the game. What we REALLY need is a tool that works game-wide and has more comprehensive options, rather than just tossing four random people together and porting them into a flashpoint.

 

I'm not against the porting, either. I am simply against your cross-server instant random thing.

 

"I've answered your point before. No that you can't see it in my post history means nothing."

 

Very well I will assume what your argument is:

 

With more people seeing the content you fear that they will complain and it will be nerfed.

 

Again my answer is that all that changes is the volume of groups, what bioware does with that increased data is up to them and outside the scope of this argument

[darkcerb]

So you agree more people should be able to run group content. Suppose the content is too hard for some people, should they not be allowed to run more content as well?

 

*whistles* alarmist escalation outside the scope of this argument.

 

20 yards and try again.

[PjPablo]

So you agree more people should be able to run group content. Suppose the content is too hard for some people, should they not be allowed to run more content as well?

 

What better way to learn that content by running it.

 

Can we be honest for a second. MMO's require very little skill when it comes to PVE. It's all about knowing the encounter. The more people run said encounter the more familiar it becomes and the more likely they are to successfully complete that content.

 

Please tell me we are not saying that because 'bad players' might get to run content that it would need to be nerfed? What's next an aptitude test at subscription? "I am sorry Mr. Baddie but you simply don't have what it takes to play our fine MMO."

 

Come on.....

[harpuax]

*whistles* alarmist escalation outside the scope of this argument.

 

20 yards and try again.

 

So your answer is to dodge the question.

[harpuax]

What better way to learn that content by running it.

 

Can we be honest for a second. MMO's require very little skill when it comes to PVE. It's all about knowing the encounter. The more people run said encounter the more familiar it becomes and the more likely they are to successfully complete that content.

 

Please tell me we are not saying that because 'bad players' might get to run content that it would need to be nerfed? What's next an aptitude test at subscription? "I am sorry Mr. Baddie but you simply don't have what it takes to play our fine MMO."

 

Come on.....

 

I am not saying anything pro or con. I just asked a question.

[Derekloffin]

Probably the biggest issue with X-server is invariably become THE way to deal with the dungeons. Even guild groups dry up very quickly against the easy allure of that kind of matching system. WoW went even one step further and out of some real silliness gave random group an extra buff and extra reward...

 

To me, to do x-server, you need to make in server more attractive, not less, and significantly so. Only way I can see that working though is to have standard drops in xserver, and double drops in normal in server groups (would be different for other dungeon models but we're stuck with what we got). Without that kind of incentive, the in server option is not even got a prayer of staying a realistic option. People will switch to the x server and never look back, forcing those that remain to switch too due to simple lack of support.

[Arsynic]

I approve this thread. Especially the point about bad players. I had someone QQ and rage-quit because we died a couple of times early on in a Heroic due to some miscommunication. I put this group together after 30 minutes just sitting there during my baby's two hour nap. The Heroic took an hour and a half to complete all of the bonuses plus having to selectively isolate mobs that three people could beat. Halfway near the end of the Heroic, my baby was up and hungry. So even doing things the "social" way, I got the worst of both worlds, a long *** wait and a perfectionist who QQ 5 minutes into the Heroic.

 

Some folks don't have one hour to spend looking for "the right people" especially when that's not guaranteed. The low server pops seriously exacerbate this issue. Sure I can skip Heroics but I don't level as quickly. I had to abandon Balmorra due to the TEENS of people on at prime time.

[PjPablo]

I am not saying anything pro or con. I just asked a question.

 

Ok then. I'll answer more directly. No, content is not nerfed due to more people running that content.

[darkcerb]

So your answer is to dodge the question.

 

With more people seeing the content you fear that they will complain and it will be nerfed.

 

Again my answer is that all that changes is the volume of groups, what bioware does with that increased data is up to them and outside the scope of this argument

 

Can you read our posts first? that'd help alot.

[Taroen]

"I've answered your point before. No that you can't see it in my post history means nothing."

 

Very well I will assume what your argument is:

 

With more people seeing the content you fear that they will complain and it will be nerfed.

 

Again my answer is that all that changes is the volume of groups, what bioware does with that increased data is up to them and outside the scope of this argument

 

That has never been my position, at any point. I would love to see more people running content, and I think that the current options for putting together groups sucks.

 

What sucks worse is a random instant cross-server group finder. I've laid out several times why those groups would be inferior even to just a standard pug, and making that the standard group for the game effects everyone.

 

The reason I rarely answer your posts is because you tend to fill them with strawman arguments and assumptions like the one you just made, and there have been more interesting posts to respond to. You ASSUME that I don't want more people running content. You assume wrong.

[Taroen]

Ok then. I'll answer more directly. No, content is not nerfed due to more people running that content.

 

No one is claiming that. Please put your strawman away.

[PjPablo]

Probably the biggest issue with X-server is invariably become THE way to deal with the dungeons. Even guild groups dry up very quickly against the easy allure of that kind of matching system. WoW went even one step further and out of some real silliness gave random group an extra buff and extra reward...

 

To me, to do x-server, you need to make in server more attractive, not less, and significantly so. Only way I can see that working though is to have standard drops in xserver, and double drops in normal in server groups (would be different for other dungeon models but we're stuck with what we got). Without that kind of incentive, the in server option is not even got a prayer of staying a realistic option. People will switch to the x server and never look back, forcing those that remain to switch too due to simple lack of support.

 

The only reason people would use the cross-server queues with all things being equal? Because it works. There is a reason why people don't tend to use the current LFG tool. Adoption is a great measure of success.

[Touchbass]

Ok then. I'll answer more directly. No, content is not nerfed due to more people running that content.

 

Yeah, dungeons were never really suppose to be this massive difficult time sink. The fights released in Cata were more then fine difficult wise. I didn't enjoy the heroics of BC where it took long to find the right make up and the gear drops weren't all that interesting. Now, if they released "hard mode" dungeons as an optional tier of content, that would be something I am interested in.

[harpuax]

Ok then. I'll answer more directly. No, content is not nerfed due to more people running that content.

 

I did not ask if the content is nerfed due to more people running it. I asked if the content is too hard for some people, should they not be allowed to run more content as well? In other words, should some people be excluded from content?