Group Finder And Matchmaking

What is your mindset towards group finders, dungeon LFGs, and matchmaking with so much content not being instanced based? Do you feel there should a gear, weapon, or skill requirement to que as a tank if group finder is a thing? For example a tank may be required to slot a shield or at least one to two taunt/threat generator. How would you approach this?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Lash

The game should let you fail. If you do not properly vet a tank then that is on you. It teaches a player to make connections and join a guild.

Mag7spy

NyceGaming wrote: »

What is your mindset towards group finders, dungeon LFGs, and matchmaking with so much content not being instanced based? Do you feel there should a gear, weapon, or skill requirement to que as a tank if group finder is a thing? For example a tank may be required to slot a shield or at least one to two taunt/threat generator. How would you approach this?

They don't have match matching in the game you got to actually socialize and make groups.

NyceGaming

Mag7spy wrote: »

NyceGaming wrote: »

What is your mindset towards group finders, dungeon LFGs, and matchmaking with so much content not being instanced based? Do you feel there should a gear, weapon, or skill requirement to que as a tank if group finder is a thing? For example a tank may be required to slot a shield or at least one to two taunt/threat generator. How would you approach this?

They don't have match matching in the game you got to actually socialize and make groups.

Yea and that’s something I like, but I asked because I know there’s a lot of people who dislike that from what I hear

Arya_Yeshe

Well, I do love the group find in Guild Wars 2, it is a vast game. It works really well in GW2 because in the game it is quite easy teleporting all around.

In AoC won't be so easy travelling around the map, so I wonder how a LFG system will work if you can't just click and go to the group

Azherae

NyceGaming wrote: »

What is your mindset towards group finders, dungeon LFGs, and matchmaking with so much content not being instanced based? Do you feel there should a gear, weapon, or skill requirement to que as a tank if group finder is a thing? For example a tank may be required to slot a shield or at least one to two taunt/threat generator. How would you approach this?

I'd be okay with Party Leaders having the ability to set a FEW requirements in any 'Party Finder' so that they can filter responses.

e.g. if you're looking for a Paladin, being able to specify 'must have exactly this Body Piece', 'must have this ability at Tier 3', 'must have this much total Elemental Defense', etc.

I think this would possibly HELP with social interactions, if it appeared on the Party Finder.

Scenario A: You can't do this, you get 7 different tanks (this is a Fantasy World don't judge me) all saying they are willing to tank for you, then you have to vet them until you find one (or none) that you feel comfortable actually tanking with, possibly upsetting multiple people.

Scenario B: You can do this, you get who you want, OR you get someone who can look at your requirements, consider 'wait maybe they need this, but I have this equivalent thing/different approach', and then that person contacts you and talks to you about it while already knowing the requirements and can just ask why you need them. Then you just remove the requirements if you agree (admittedly I'm used to something like this already so biased).

Is this 'elitism' or 'gatekeeping' to people? I'm seriously never sure about how this sort of thing is perceived nowadays (I don't play FFXIV, for example, and I have a 'static' for basically everything).

Nerror

I think group-finders are a bad thing overall, because they kill a lot of the social aspects of a game. So I am happy Ashes won't have it.

With that said, hypothetically speaking, I think it's ok to specify which basic archetypes or roles the group needs, and a level range, but not more than that. No gear req. or specs. I think that does become too elitist. Also no teleport to dungeon/group obviously. People need to move to location manually.

Arya_Yeshe

If AoC has no LFG system, people will make public chats for each dungeon and use the chat as signup, just join the chat and say:

Boom, a party invite has arrived

Not having a LFG system is not a big deal, plus in AoC there will be barely any teleporting, so you cant LFG your way and be teleported to the party anyway

Azherae

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

If AoC has no LFG system, people will make public chats for each dungeon and use the chat as signup, just join the chat and say:
x

Boom, a party invite has arrived

Not having a LFG system is not a big deal, plus in AoC there will be barely any teleporting, so you cant LFG your way and be teleported to the party anyway

Having come from a game that did not quite have this but had something similar, here's my reasoning. It will probably seem picky, but I should share the experience anyway.

FFXI has an 'autogroup' function. It also has basically the ability to just 'quick invite' people from far away that match the requirements, and those people are searchable. Here's the thing.

Player A, the Paladin, has their LFG flag up. They aren't looking for a group, they're open to joining one. This leads to the 'blind invite' where the party leader just 'sends the invite outright', and then starts talking if it is accepted.

The result is that the Paladin joins the party and can instantly see the names of the other party members. This is a good thing. If they dislike anyone from that party they can just leave again immediately. If they don't, and they're not too busy, they start moving toward the nearest 'Fast Travel' (usually about 5m away max). And they start talking. In Party chat.

While the Paladin is moving, everyone else can clarify what their plans are, what they need the Paladin to do, etc. But they now need to ask the Paladin some questions about their build. Even in Ashes you would probably want to do at least that, in case of serious incompatibility.

Sometimes you find that such an incompatibility exists during the chatting phase, but this isn't 'social', it's an 'interview' with some questions about 'do you tick these checkboxes for what we need?' That will happen regardless.

The less time that both sides of this interaction spend on the 'checkboxes' portion of the interaction, the better.

That's my opinion. I don't see the point of having a potentially negative/slightly irritating interaction with someone new because it takes 3 minutes of chatting to find out that they specialize entirely in 2Handed Sword and you want a Sword+Shield Tank for some reason (or realistically, something more obscure about augments or abilities).

It can even lead to people 'not liking each other' based on entirely avoidable interactions. If you don't want people to be able to check other people's gear 'basically at will', then the 'requirements' need to be put on the 'Party Leader' interaction side.

Like it or not, a lot of people won't have a ton of time to play and it might overall be better for even socialization if they reduce some of the irritation of 'spending 6 minutes working out details en route from your solo activity only to realize that the group really expected you to have Shield Assault Lv3 and you don't'.

Arya_Yeshe

@Azherae I never played FFXI, but this seems a good option.

I still prefer GW2, in GW2 you don't need to party up anyone, people with no party or from multiple parties just gang up on the boss and if you participted in any way then you have your own treasure chest. So everybody gets their loot and no party is required

In GW2, it is seemless, no party is required

Azherae

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

@Azherae I never played FFXI, but this seems a good option.

I still prefer GW2, in GW2 you don't need to party up anyone, people with no party or from multiple parties just gang up on the boss and if you participted in any way then you have your own treasure chest. So everybody gets their loot and no party is required

In GW2, it is seemless, no party is required

Oh, my bad, I got confused, in your other thread I'm pretty sure you noted that you did play it but just forgot everything about it.

Maybe your memory's out of phase again? (no mockery no sarc)

I'd appreciate knowing, since I figure there's not as much point bringing up similar stuff (at least not without proper explanations) if you really didn't play it.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

Like it or not, a lot of people won't have a ton of time to play and it might overall be better for even socialization if they reduce some of the irritation of 'spending 6 minutes working out details en route from your solo activity only to realize that the group really expected you to have Shield Assault Lv3 and you don't'.

This is the main reason why I'd prefer if Ashes had a time-based party-finder and make it as easy as possible for people that play in the same timeframe to match up together and create their own "statics".

From my experience that is basically what happens either way, just after a long time of mixing and matching newcomers until you get the best possible setup.

In other words, the game should position itself as a long-time party relationship one, rather than a "pick a rando on the ground and play for an hour together" one.

Arya_Yeshe

Azherae wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

@Azherae I never played FFXI, but this seems a good option.

I still prefer GW2, in GW2 you don't need to party up anyone, people with no party or from multiple parties just gang up on the boss and if you participted in any way then you have your own treasure chest. So everybody gets their loot and no party is required

In GW2, it is seemless, no party is required

Oh, my bad, I got confused, in your other thread I'm pretty sure you noted that you did play it but just forgot everything about it.

Maybe your memory's out of phase again? (no mockery no sarc)

I'd appreciate knowing, since I figure there's not as much point bringing up similar stuff (at least not without proper explanations) if you really didn't play it.

I never played FFXI and I did like all your comments about FFXI
My memory is fine about this

Arya_Yeshe

With no LFG, maybe AoC will have dungeon hithickers by the dungeon's entrace

Maybe if there's inns or taverns by crossroads, they could be gathering points for possible parties

Ludullu

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

I still prefer GW2, in GW2 you don't need to party up anyone, people with no party or from multiple parties just gang up on the boss and if you participted in any way then you have your own treasure chest. So everybody gets their loot and no party is required

In GW2, it is seemless, no party is required

That is the carebeariest thing I've ever heard. My god.

Arya_Yeshe

NiKr wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

I still prefer GW2, in GW2 you don't need to party up anyone, people with no party or from multiple parties just gang up on the boss and if you participted in any way then you have your own treasure chest. So everybody gets their loot and no party is required

In GW2, it is seemless, no party is required

That is the carebeariest thing I've ever heard. My god.

Maybe it is!

It avoids all gear or level shamming, you can just pass by and leech loot, but it is great for PvPers waiting the matchmaking qeue to go on... like me!

It all boils down to why you are doing it

Azherae

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

@Azherae I never played FFXI, but this seems a good option.

I still prefer GW2, in GW2 you don't need to party up anyone, people with no party or from multiple parties just gang up on the boss and if you participted in any way then you have your own treasure chest. So everybody gets their loot and no party is required

In GW2, it is seemless, no party is required

Oh, my bad, I got confused, in your other thread I'm pretty sure you noted that you did play it but just forgot everything about it.

Maybe your memory's out of phase again? (no mockery no sarc)

I'd appreciate knowing, since I figure there's not as much point bringing up similar stuff (at least not without proper explanations) if you really didn't play it.

I never played FFXI and I did like all your comments about FFXI
My memory is fine about this

Got it, thanks, I'll readjust and let the others know too (I think you were responding to someone else in the post I misunderstood).

Arya_Yeshe

Azherae wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

@Azherae I never played FFXI, but this seems a good option.

I still prefer GW2, in GW2 you don't need to party up anyone, people with no party or from multiple parties just gang up on the boss and if you participted in any way then you have your own treasure chest. So everybody gets their loot and no party is required

In GW2, it is seemless, no party is required

Oh, my bad, I got confused, in your other thread I'm pretty sure you noted that you did play it but just forgot everything about it.

Maybe your memory's out of phase again? (no mockery no sarc)

I'd appreciate knowing, since I figure there's not as much point bringing up similar stuff (at least not without proper explanations) if you really didn't play it.

I never played FFXI and I did like all your comments about FFXI
My memory is fine about this

Got it, thanks, I'll readjust and let the others know too (I think you were responding to someone else in the post I misunderstood).

Now that you brought this up, I might have installed it, in the past I installed many games, but I only played a few. I did play some FF, then you started talking about FFXI and I understood that I did not play it, made me very curious about the game and I liked everything you said about it

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

I still prefer GW2, in GW2 you don't need to party up anyone, people with no party or from multiple parties just gang up on the boss and if you participted in any way then you have your own treasure chest. So everybody gets their loot and no party is required

In GW2, it is seemless, no party is required

That is the carebeariest thing I've ever heard. My god.

Yeah, it's one of the many reasons I absolutely hate GW2.

Hinotori

NiKr wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

I still prefer GW2, in GW2 you don't need to party up anyone, people with no party or from multiple parties just gang up on the boss and if you participted in any way then you have your own treasure chest. So everybody gets their loot and no party is required

In GW2, it is seemless, no party is required

That is the carebeariest thing I've ever heard. My god.

its true.

novercalis

NyceGaming wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

NyceGaming wrote: »

What is your mindset towards group finders, dungeon LFGs, and matchmaking with so much content not being instanced based? Do you feel there should a gear, weapon, or skill requirement to que as a tank if group finder is a thing? For example a tank may be required to slot a shield or at least one to two taunt/threat generator. How would you approach this?

They don't have match matching in the game you got to actually socialize and make groups.

Yea and that’s something I like, but I asked because I know there’s a lot of people who dislike that from what I hear

and the answer to that is: this game isnt for you.
This game isnt trying to be #1 biggest MMO
this game isnt trying to be a wow killer
this game isnt trying to appease everyone

Steven made it clear - this is a niche game. All the hype, AOC will have a stupid huge numbers of players day one, but like New World, expect to see a massive exodus of 90%-95% of the player base. Steven acknowledged this and is fine with this.

Child Item