Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.

Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

Suggestion: Looking For Group

2

Comments

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    rikardp98 wrote: »

    Yes it does reduce social interaction, it removes the bad social interaction and keep the good and meaningful social interaction.
    No, it doesn't.

    Keep in mind, Ashes isn't a themepark game. It doesn't have the same questing that a game like WoW has. The reasoning behind wanting to find a group to run a quest that happens in WoW likely won't happen in Ashes.

    A looking for group system in Ashes actually has a very different purpose to the same system in WoW. Rather than being about the content as it is in WoW, it is about the people. You are looking for a group not because you have something you want to get done, but because you don't have any friends online and want to meet new people.

    I agree with you that spamming chat to find a person isn't a good experience. That is why the notion of this system is a good idea. The system will allow you to see players that want a group, and since Ashes is not WoW, people will be after *A* group, as opposed to a group for a specific piece of content.

    As such, every person of an appropriate class and level thst is listed as LFG would be interested in running the content you are wanting to run.
  • nanfoodlenanfoodle Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    This is some of the things you could do in EQ. It was very helpful. Seems FF built on it and did it better. I love the OP suggestion
  • pyreal wrote: »
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    pyreal wrote: »
    /global 9 Cleric LFG HH

    A LFG flag would let me stop spamming chat and play instead.

    A simple vassal wide UI showing LFG flagged players showing class, lvl, guild, and name is ask that is needed.

    Intended activity is not needed and does limit interaction.

    If I'm flagged as only wanting a specific activity I won't be contacted to participate in others. But if I'm simply flagged, I'll get whispers of I want to do this or that, and that increases interaction.

    My argument is that these interactions are irrelevant and inefficient. Without filters, if I flag myself as LFG or my group is looking for players, I’ll have to message a large number of flagged players, resulting in repetitive one-liners like:
    "Hey, do you want to do Dungeon X? We need a DPS."
    "No, sorry, not interested."

    This process would be repeated multiple times, creating a lot of meaningless copy-pasting. Meanwhile, flagged players would receive numerous messages from groups offering content they’re not interested in.

    A system without filters increases spam, which adds noise rather than fostering meaningful social interaction. To me, this kind of spam doesn’t contribute to necessary social engagement—it just wastes time. Filters, however, reduce this inefficiency by ensuring only relevant players connect.

    It’s true that sometimes players might not be sure what they want to do and are open to different activities. In that case, they can simply mark themselves as available for general activities or browse the listed groups to see if something catches their interest. As I said, the system shouldn’t feel limiting—it should be an efficient tool to help players connect meaningfully.

    I understand your pov.
    But speaking for myself, if I was flagged for LFG and kept getting whispered for activities that weren't no 1 on my list, I would eventually give up on my no 1 and just accept a party invitation for whatever.

    If I had been filtered because I had "HH only" tag, I wouldn't have grouped up because I wouldn't have been contacted in the first place.

    Why is giving up on what you originally wanted to do a good outcome? Shouldn’t the system help you find groups that align with the activities you’re most interested in?

    A well-designed UI that shows both flagged players and available groups would allow you to actively search for groups rather than relying solely on others reaching out. This way, you can find something that matches what you want to do in the moment, without settling.

    As I mentioned earlier, if you’re unsure what you want to do, you can still browse listed groups or LFG chat channels to find inspiration.
  • EndowedEndowed Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Right now, and forever more sans change, chat will be dominated as the default LFG mechanism.

    That's unfortunate for chat.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Endowed wrote: »
    Right now, and forever more sans change, chat will be dominated as the default LFG mechanism.

    That's unfortunate for chat.

    The system the OP is talking about, I should clarify, was accompanied by a general lack of Global chat.

    So there was much less 'shouting in chat for party' for distant areas, particularly.

    It did have some downsides, such as the 'blind invite', the WoW-style mentality of 'you want to fill the slot and I want to do this thing'. But people ignored those half the time.

    Lack of global chat was a large contributor to the usefulness of this function because otherwise you would have to stay in an area where you expected to hear 'Large Area chat'. You would go to wherever you wanted to do something, put up the /seacom and LFG, and either wait, or look for other people, depending on your personality type.

    This wasn't even the primary benefit of it. In a game like that (which is similar to Ashes), when you want to do content and can search for people within your level range and just 'see if a reasonable party configuration is online', the target content matters much less. By contrast, if you notice that all the other people online are Ranged DPS and no Tanks or Healers are LFG within your level range, you could just leave yours up while doing something else. Eventually someone would do the search at a timing when it was possible to form a party, and it would form.

    If we have no Global Chat, somehow, then some Discord server is going to end up being how this happens.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • SirChancelotSirChancelot Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    LFG like wow's custom group finder would be nice, would definitely clean up global chat a bit.

    But mixing that with OPs individual flag would be the best. Having a group finding interface were a group can post "LF tank" and it shows they have 6/8 and what classes etc.
    and a solo person can post their names/classes in a looking for work kind of way.
  • Undead CanuckUndead Canuck Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    We haven't seen what Intrepid has said will be in the game. Just be social at the taverns and by the boards in nodes.

    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Group_finder
  • Noaani wrote: »
    rikardp98 wrote: »

    Yes it does reduce social interaction, it removes the bad social interaction and keep the good and meaningful social interaction.
    No, it doesn't.

    Keep in mind, Ashes isn't a themepark game. It doesn't have the same questing that a game like WoW has. The reasoning behind wanting to find a group to run a quest that happens in WoW likely won't happen in Ashes.

    A looking for group system in Ashes actually has a very different purpose to the same system in WoW. Rather than being about the content as it is in WoW, it is about the people. You are looking for a group not because you have something you want to get done, but because you don't have any friends online and want to meet new people.

    I agree with you that spamming chat to find a person isn't a good experience. That is why the notion of this system is a good idea. The system will allow you to see players that want a group, and since Ashes is not WoW, people will be after *A* group, as opposed to a group for a specific piece of content.

    As such, every person of an appropriate class and level thst is listed as LFG would be interested in running the content you are wanting to run.

    I think you overlook the fact that even in non-themeparks games, players often form groups around shared objectives—events, dungeons, or world bosses. While grouping can sometimes be about meeting new people, this usually happens alongside pursuing a specific goal.

    Additionally, many players form small, close-knit guilds of 5-10 friends and intentionally keep them that way. At some point, they’ll need to fill group spots for specific content. Casual solo or duo players will also rely on pickup groups for activities like open-world dungeons and world bosses.

    While the game may encourage larger, socially active guilds, smaller guilds and more casual players will still be a significant, and an important part of the community and will frequently try and find groups for content.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    rikardp98 wrote: »

    Yes it does reduce social interaction, it removes the bad social interaction and keep the good and meaningful social interaction.
    No, it doesn't.

    Keep in mind, Ashes isn't a themepark game. It doesn't have the same questing that a game like WoW has. The reasoning behind wanting to find a group to run a quest that happens in WoW likely won't happen in Ashes.

    A looking for group system in Ashes actually has a very different purpose to the same system in WoW. Rather than being about the content as it is in WoW, it is about the people. You are looking for a group not because you have something you want to get done, but because you don't have any friends online and want to meet new people.

    I agree with you that spamming chat to find a person isn't a good experience. That is why the notion of this system is a good idea. The system will allow you to see players that want a group, and since Ashes is not WoW, people will be after *A* group, as opposed to a group for a specific piece of content.

    As such, every person of an appropriate class and level thst is listed as LFG would be interested in running the content you are wanting to run.

    I think you overlook the fact that even in non-themeparks games, players often form groups around shared objectives—events, dungeons, or world bosses. While grouping can sometimes be about meeting new people, this usually happens alongside pursuing a specific goal.

    Additionally, many players form small, close-knit guilds of 5-10 friends and intentionally keep them that way. At some point, they’ll need to fill group spots for specific content. Casual solo or duo players will also rely on pickup groups for activities like open-world dungeons and world bosses.

    While the game may encourage larger, socially active guilds, smaller guilds and more casual players will still be a significant, and an important part of the community and will frequently try and find groups for content.

    Events and world bosses won't be using the LFG system.

    Dungeons are a potential, but again, people in Ashes are less likely to have a need to go to a specific dungeon than in a more themepark game. For the most part, any level appropriate dungeon is acceptable.

    There will be occasional exceptions to this, but these will be exceptions to the rule, not the norm. The normal use for an LFG system in Ashes will be people wanting a group to fill in time, and meet new people along the way - not to try nd get a group to get that quest objective in the bottom of the dungeon that they really want to get.

    Since the tool will be used differently in Ashes, for a different purpose, it should be designed for *THAT* purpose, not for the purpose of a similar tool in a different game.
  • LaetitianLaetitian Member
    edited November 24
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    Laetitian wrote: »
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    Laetitian wrote: »
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    A system like the OP is suggesting (not the one from WoW - not even early WoW) would be really good.

    A system to reduce friction of grouping with new people is always a win for an MMORPG, and as a general statement that is why I believe "something" is a good idea.

    What the FFXI system (that is similar to what EQ2 had) has going for it is that it still requires players to talk to form groups. Everything is still in players hands. All it's doing is giving you a list of people rhat may want to join a group, and players still have to do everything themselves from there.

    This keeps the social aspect in tact, which is very important.

    The obvious issue with Ashes is that you shouldn't just be searching all players on your server - you may find someone wanting to group that is the role you need filled, but they are 2 hours travel away.

    So, my thoughts would be that the search och system (which also has other uses) should only return results for people in the same node cluster you are in (so if you are in a town node of a metropolis, it returns all players in thst metropolis and its vassals - but if you are in a town node thst is not a vassal of a metropolis, it only returns players in that node).

    Making it so it only returns downstream results (so, the node and its vassal nodes) is also viable, as this keeps the notion of the parent node being a hub.

    But yeah, it definitely shouldn't be global.


    The group finder in classic wotlk, or the one in retail is also 100% in players hands. It's just a fancy bulletin board where people can list their groups. This could be for pvp events, PvE, questing, and much more.

    Yeah, I know how it works.

    It is the content filtering that is a negative here, not a positive.

    If people can state that they only want a group for a given piece of content, they are putting g the content first, not the other players.

    This is essentially WoW in a nutshell.

    An LFG group shouldn't be what you use to get a group to run that quest you want to finish. It should be used to meet new people, make new friends.

    Asking people if the are looking for the same content as you gets tedious for both the group leader and the people getting asked.

    Yeah, but the idea isn't to use this system to run specific content.

    That is where you are looking at this from a WoW perspective.

    The idea of a system like this is NOT about the content.

    Edit to give you the reason; if a system like this is about the content, in a game like Ashes, it will almost never result in matches. The cross section of class, level, current node and intended content is just too small.

    The idea of this system is to find new people, make new friends, and maybe then you could organize a group with people you already know to run a specific piece of content - not that Ashes is going to have nearly the same need to run specific pieces of content as WoW had.
    That's the beauty of filtering, you have the option to select content, or questing, open-world stuff and more. It's not limiting.

    And there a more games that have a similar UI for making groups. FFXIV have it and ESO implemented something similar recently. So this isn't something bad form wow, this is one of those rare things that actually makes sense.

    You say it's about finding new friends, but why limit it to a single tag and a unfriendly UI.
    Whether it makes sense isn't the question. The question is whether it encourages genuine player interaction.

    Filtering a list to find a nameless player to /invite, run content XYZ with, flame if they're not good enough, barely talk to if they are good enough, or finally maybe send a guild invite to when you're done - that's not social interaction. That's barely different from hiring an NPC.

    Real interaction requires talking about your goals and expectations. Part of that is talking about which content you're interested in, and the big advantage of this requirement is that it encourages you to then further talk out how you want to play. Discuss what sort of damage you expect, what strategy you're planning on, what other players your group consists of, and how you intend on making the most of your party composition.

    Preparation is everything if you want an interaction with a stranger to go well. Being incentivised/forced to treat them as people and figure out the details of how you want the interaction to go; that's how you end up having a good time. It's the opposite to the frustrated, toxic, implicitly implied DPS metre standards.

    @thread:
    Tags next to your name sounds fine. Anything automated or overly specific is a bad idea that will lead players to avoid the sort of genuine social interaction that will only benefit them in the long run.
    Personally I think there shouldn't be filter lists. If there are node-wide lists of players with the tags, at least the tags should be as general as possible.
    And what happens during the group have nothing to do with how you form that group.

    I don't understand how you go from "filters" to "avoiding social interaction". All filters do is help you with the first step of having a meaningful social interaction.
    Incorrect on these two points, and that's really all I was talking about regarding whether the thing you praised about WoW made sense (I never said Ashes' system *didn't* make sense by the way, you were extremely quick to jump to whatever conclusion was convenient for you there.)

    Giving players too many tools to make their decisions for them incentivises them to put the decision entirely in the game's hand, and hope for the best.

    It doesn't *prevent* them from still having that conversation with the person they invited. But it removes incentive to put in that effort. By doing 70% of the work to letting a player find a suitable party member, you'll get fewer players engaging in the necessary social interaction effort to create a functional party. Whereas if the game only did 20% of the work, players would be more aware that it is their own responsibility to ensure that each party member knows what to expect, and what will be expected of them.

    That's why "it's not full automation" isn't good enough. The more information you add in the system, the more you disincentivise players to go through the rest of the interaction, and the more you end up with players treating each other like NPCs, and then complaining that their parties aren't up to their standards (or too demanding), and that the game is a soul-less dungeon grinding lobby. It's in the hands of the players whether it escalates like that, but the developers should still avoid anything that encourages that sort of behaviour.
    [...]
    For example, if I shout in world chat, "LF2M for Dungeon X, need 1 tank and 1 DPS," and someone replies, "Hi, healer here looking for Dungeon Y," that's an interaction we could have completely avoided with a basic filter. It doesn’t add any value to the social experience; it just wastes time.
    [...]
    You really didn't respond to my point there. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if the total information exchange up to the point of people adding or messaging each other is the same between spamming regional/global chat, and using a precise filtering tool. If you automate the selection process through a tool instead of doing it with players' own words, you get people into the mindset of automated communication. They will be less encouraged to have a real interaction after making contact, because the mode of making contact set them up with the *expectation* that the transaction has been set up by the tool.
    The only one who can validate you for all the posts you didn't write is you.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    rikardp98 wrote: »

    Yes it does reduce social interaction, it removes the bad social interaction and keep the good and meaningful social interaction.
    No, it doesn't.

    Keep in mind, Ashes isn't a themepark game. It doesn't have the same questing that a game like WoW has. The reasoning behind wanting to find a group to run a quest that happens in WoW likely won't happen in Ashes.

    A looking for group system in Ashes actually has a very different purpose to the same system in WoW. Rather than being about the content as it is in WoW, it is about the people. You are looking for a group not because you have something you want to get done, but because you don't have any friends online and want to meet new people.

    I agree with you that spamming chat to find a person isn't a good experience. That is why the notion of this system is a good idea. The system will allow you to see players that want a group, and since Ashes is not WoW, people will be after *A* group, as opposed to a group for a specific piece of content.

    As such, every person of an appropriate class and level thst is listed as LFG would be interested in running the content you are wanting to run.

    I think you overlook the fact that even in non-themeparks games, players often form groups around shared objectives—events, dungeons, or world bosses. While grouping can sometimes be about meeting new people, this usually happens alongside pursuing a specific goal.

    Additionally, many players form small, close-knit guilds of 5-10 friends and intentionally keep them that way. At some point, they’ll need to fill group spots for specific content. Casual solo or duo players will also rely on pickup groups for activities like open-world dungeons and world bosses.

    While the game may encourage larger, socially active guilds, smaller guilds and more casual players will still be a significant, and an important part of the community and will frequently try and find groups for content.

    Events and world bosses won't be using the LFG system.

    Dungeons are a potential, but again, people in Ashes are less likely to have a need to go to a specific dungeon than in a more themepark game. For the most part, any level appropriate dungeon is acceptable.

    There will be occasional exceptions to this, but these will be exceptions to the rule, not the norm. The normal use for an LFG system in Ashes will be people wanting a group to fill in time, and meet new people along the way - not to try nd get a group to get that quest objective in the bottom of the dungeon that they really want to get.

    Since the tool will be used differently in Ashes, for a different purpose, it should be designed for *THAT* purpose, not for the purpose of a similar tool in a different game.

    Of course, the system should be designed for Ashes. I’m not suggesting it should be a direct copy of WoW's system. I only used it as one example of a group-finding tool I enjoyed and believe could work well in a tailored form. I’ve also mentioned systems in FF14 and ESO as examples.

    I agree that some content, like world bosses, may be more of a big guild effort, with groups formed via Discord or guild chat. However, I still think there will be players interested in joining external groups for these activities, and having a UI to facilitate that is only a positive.

    As for dungeons and events, Ashes will have specific content tied to them, influenced by node progression. Each dungeon will likely offer unique mobs, quests, materials, and loot. Wouldn’t it be beneficial for players to group up for those quest objectives or dungeon bosses? And if the goal is to encourage social interaction, why not make it easy to start? Giving players something in common—like a POI quest or a shared goal—is a great way to foster those connections.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited November 24
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    I agree that some content, like world bosses, may be more of a big guild effort, with groups formed via Discord or guild chat. However, I still think there will be players interested in joining external groups for these activities, and having a UI to facilitate that is only a positive.
    There probably will be - but there is almost definately going to be a tool specifically for that - one that is location based.

    This is what Archeage had for events and such, and I fully expect to see it in Ashes for events, and many different types of boss encounters that Intrepid intend for Ashes.
    Each dungeon will likely offer unique mobs, quests, materials, and loot.
    While this is possible to a degree (not to the degree many think - it would be illogical to build 20+ versions of each dungeon), you need to keep in mind that as each new dungeon appears, the old one disappears.

    People aren't going to be looking for people to run an old dungeon, they will be looking for people to run the current.

    If we are to assume that this LFG system only applies to the node you are in and those around you, it is probable that there will only be 1 level appropriate dungoen anyway. If you want to run a different dungeon, you will go to that area and look for a group there - where it will again be the only dungeon of an appropriate level range.
  • Laetitian wrote: »
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    Laetitian wrote: »
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    Laetitian wrote: »
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    A system like the OP is suggesting (not the one from WoW - not even early WoW) would be really good.

    A system to reduce friction of grouping with new people is always a win for an MMORPG, and as a general statement that is why I believe "something" is a good idea.

    What the FFXI system (that is similar to what EQ2 had) has going for it is that it still requires players to talk to form groups. Everything is still in players hands. All it's doing is giving you a list of people rhat may want to join a group, and players still have to do everything themselves from there.

    This keeps the social aspect in tact, which is very important.

    The obvious issue with Ashes is that you shouldn't just be searching all players on your server - you may find someone wanting to group that is the role you need filled, but they are 2 hours travel away.

    So, my thoughts would be that the search och system (which also has other uses) should only return results for people in the same node cluster you are in (so if you are in a town node of a metropolis, it returns all players in thst metropolis and its vassals - but if you are in a town node thst is not a vassal of a metropolis, it only returns players in that node).

    Making it so it only returns downstream results (so, the node and its vassal nodes) is also viable, as this keeps the notion of the parent node being a hub.

    But yeah, it definitely shouldn't be global.


    The group finder in classic wotlk, or the one in retail is also 100% in players hands. It's just a fancy bulletin board where people can list their groups. This could be for pvp events, PvE, questing, and much more.

    Yeah, I know how it works.

    It is the content filtering that is a negative here, not a positive.

    If people can state that they only want a group for a given piece of content, they are putting g the content first, not the other players.

    This is essentially WoW in a nutshell.

    An LFG group shouldn't be what you use to get a group to run that quest you want to finish. It should be used to meet new people, make new friends.

    Asking people if the are looking for the same content as you gets tedious for both the group leader and the people getting asked.

    Yeah, but the idea isn't to use this system to run specific content.

    That is where you are looking at this from a WoW perspective.

    The idea of a system like this is NOT about the content.

    Edit to give you the reason; if a system like this is about the content, in a game like Ashes, it will almost never result in matches. The cross section of class, level, current node and intended content is just too small.

    The idea of this system is to find new people, make new friends, and maybe then you could organize a group with people you already know to run a specific piece of content - not that Ashes is going to have nearly the same need to run specific pieces of content as WoW had.
    That's the beauty of filtering, you have the option to select content, or questing, open-world stuff and more. It's not limiting.

    And there a more games that have a similar UI for making groups. FFXIV have it and ESO implemented something similar recently. So this isn't something bad form wow, this is one of those rare things that actually makes sense.

    You say it's about finding new friends, but why limit it to a single tag and a unfriendly UI.
    Whether it makes sense isn't the question. The question is whether it encourages genuine player interaction.

    Filtering a list to find a nameless player to /invite, run content XYZ with, flame if they're not good enough, barely talk to if they are good enough, or finally maybe send a guild invite to when you're done - that's not social interaction. That's barely different from hiring an NPC.

    Real interaction requires talking about your goals and expectations. Part of that is talking about which content you're interested in, and the big advantage of this requirement is that it encourages you to then further talk out how you want to play. Discuss what sort of damage you expect, what strategy you're planning on, what other players your group consists of, and how you intend on making the most of your party composition.

    Preparation is everything if you want an interaction with a stranger to go well. Being incentivised/forced to treat them as people and figure out the details of how you want the interaction to go; that's how you end up having a good time. It's the opposite to the frustrated, toxic, implicitly implied DPS metre standards.

    @thread:
    Tags next to your name sounds fine. Anything automated or overly specific is a bad idea that will lead players to avoid the sort of genuine social interaction that will only benefit them in the long run.
    Personally I think there shouldn't be filter lists. If there are node-wide lists of players with the tags, at least the tags should be as general as possible.
    And what happens during the group have nothing to do with how you form that group.

    I don't understand how you go from "filters" to "avoiding social interaction". All filters do is help you with the first step of having a meaningful social interaction.
    Incorrect on these two points, and that's really all I was talking about regarding whether the thing you praised about WoW made sense (I never said Ashes' system *didn't* make sense by the way, you were extremely quick to jump to whatever conclusion was convenient for you there.)

    Giving players too many tools to make their decisions for them incentivises them to put the decision entirely in the game's hand, and hope for the best.

    It doesn't *prevent* them from still having that conversation with the person they invited. But it removes incentive to put in that effort. By doing 70% of the work to letting a player find a suitable party member, you'll get fewer players engaging in the necessary social interaction effort to create a functional party. Whereas if the game only did 20% of the work, players would be more aware that it is their own responsibility to ensure that each party member knows what to expect, and what will be expected of them.

    That's why "it's not full automation" isn't good enough. The more information you add in the system, the more you disincentivise players to go through the rest of the interaction, and the more you end up with players treating each other like NPCs, and then complaining that their parties aren't up to their standards (or too demanding), and that the game is a soul-less dungeon grinding lobby. It's in the hands of the players whether it escalates like that, but the developers should still avoid anything that encourages that sort of behaviour.
    [...]
    For example, if I shout in world chat, "LF2M for Dungeon X, need 1 tank and 1 DPS," and someone replies, "Hi, healer here looking for Dungeon Y," that's an interaction we could have completely avoided with a basic filter. It doesn’t add any value to the social experience; it just wastes time.
    [...]
    You really didn't respond to my point there. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if the total information exchange up to the point of people adding or messaging each other is the same between spamming regional/global chat, and using a precise filtering tool. If you automate the selection process through a tool instead of doing it with players' own words, you get people into the mindset of automated communication. They will be less encouraged to have a real interaction after making contact, because the mode of making contact set them up with the *expectation* that the transaction has been set up by the tool.

    Filters are NOT automation, and they do NOT make communication between players automated. Instead, they improve communication by ensuring players start with a common goal or shared interest, fostering more meaningful interactions.

    I can see your point, and that’s why I’m also not a fan of automated grouping tools or teleportation systems. But what I’m suggesting is nothing like that.

    The tool doesn’t make decisions—the players do. It simply removes unnecessary friction and gives them a reason to connect. Plus, expecting players to manually message strangers can alienate those who struggle with taking the first step. Filters make social interaction more accessible for everyone, creating a better overall experience.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    I agree that some content, like world bosses, may be more of a big guild effort, with groups formed via Discord or guild chat. However, I still think there will be players interested in joining external groups for these activities, and having a UI to facilitate that is only a positive.
    There probably will be - but there is almost definately going to be a tool specifically for that - one that is location based.

    This is what Archeage had for events and such, and I fully expect to see it in Ashes for events, and many different types of boss encounters that Intrepid intend for Ashes.
    Each dungeon will likely offer unique mobs, quests, materials, and loot.
    While this is possible to a degree (not to the degree many think - it would be illogical to build 20+ versions of each dungeon), you need to keep in mind that as each new dungeon appears, the old one disappears.

    People aren't going to be looking for people to run an old dungeon, they will be looking for people to run the current.

    If we are to assume that this LFG system only applies to the node you are in and those around you, it is probable that there will only be 1 level appropriate dungoen anyway. If you want to run a different dungeon, you will go to that area and look for a group there - where it will again be the only dungeon of an appropriate level range.

    If ArcheAge had a location-based tool for events, then it’s likely something similar will be implemented in Ashes as well.

    However, I have a hard time believing Ashes will have only one level-appropriate piece of content available at any given time. The LFG tool shouldn’t be limited to just dungeons—it should encompass all types of group-friendly content. That doesn’t mean adding filters for every single quest, but it should help players find something they want to do at that moment without unnecessary friction.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited November 24
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    However, I have a hard time believing Ashes will have only one level-appropriate piece of content available at any given time.
    Yeah, there will be.

    Ashes dungeons are not going to be like what you are used to seeing in WoW. They are obviously open dungeons, but what that means is that they are basically just zones in and of themselves. An Ashes dungeon will be close to the size of some overland zones in a game like WoW.

    So yeah, it is reasonable to assume there will only be one level appropriate dungeon in an area the size we are suggestign this LFG system should work.

    If we were to assume there would be more than one level appropriate dungeon in an area that consists of the node you are in and those around it, then Ashes would have more dungeon area than overland area.

    It is most likely that an area the size we are talking about will only have a dungeon for some level ranges, not all.

    I mean, we could do the math, but a basic outline of it would be that to have more than one dungeon in an area that size, for each level range, the game would need to have several hundred total dungeons. Each of these dungeons would need to be populated 20+ times based on changes to the local node state. All of this would equate to Ashes never actually launching.

    Again, in Ashes, the thing players will want to do is *A* dungeon, not a specific dungeon.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    However, I have a hard time believing Ashes will have only one level-appropriate piece of content available at any given time.
    Yeah, there will be.

    Ashes dungeons are not going to be like what you are used to seeing in WoW. They are obviously open dungeons, but what that means is that they are basically just zones in and of themselves. An Ashes dungeon will be close to the size of some overland zones in a game like WoW.

    So yeah, it is reasonable to assume there will only be one level appropriate dungeon in an area the size we are suggestign this LFG system should work.

    If we were to assume there would be more than one level appropriate dungeon in an area that consists of the node you are in and those around it, then Ashes would have more dungeon area than overland area.

    It is most likely that an area the size we are talking about will only have a dungeon for some level ranges, not all.

    I mean, we could do the math, but a basic outline of it would be that to have more than one dungeon in an area that size, for each level range, the game would need to have several hundred total dungeons. Each of these dungeons would need to be populated 20+ times based on changes to the local node state. All of this would equate to Ashes never actually launching.

    Again, in Ashes, the thing players will want to do is *A* dungeon, not a specific dungeon.

    I understand your points about dungeons, but I wasn't specifically limiting my argument to dungeons. I was referring to level-appropriate content as a whole, which extends beyond just dungeons.

    Ashes of Creation is mostly designed to be group-focused. While I used dungeons as an example because that's a context where LFG systems are commonly discussed, the broader goal is a system that facilitates finding groups for any type of relevant content.

    And yes, as you've mentioned, Ashes should tailor its group-finding systems to suit its unique design and mechanics. Filters, however, are not exclusively tied to dungeons—they're a general feature that could make finding group content of all kinds more accessible and efficient.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited November 24
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    I was referring to level-appropriate content as a whole, which extends beyond just dungeons.
    Not really - at least, not in context.

    Events will be excluded from this system, as will caravans. Open world PvP is also excluded just in general (joining a pickup group unseen for PvP in Ashes would be a monumental misplace of trust). World bosses that aren't part of an event will be the domain of guilds all but exclusively.

    In a game like Ashes, an LFG system is for finding a group to run a dungeon.

    The argument may be made that people could want to find a group for experience gain. If that is what someone wants, then they are clearly not concerned about the specific content, as long as it is level appropriate. Putting a filter on what they are after may well mean that they miss out on groups that would provide them with faster experience gain, simply because the group in question was not looking at that filter.

    Keep in mind, the notion of filters for content in an LFG system is to filter OUT players. It is to exclude. This should only exist if the game gives players a specific reason to NOT want to run a given piece of level appropriate content, not just because they may have a preference for a different piece of content.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    I was referring to level-appropriate content as a whole, which extends beyond just dungeons.
    Not really - at least, not in context.

    Events will be excluded from this system, as will caravans. Open world PvP is also excluded just in general (joining a pickup group unseen for PvP in Ashes would be a monumental misplace of trust). World bosses that aren't part of an event will be the domain of guilds all but exclusively.

    In a game like Ashes, an LFG system is for finding a group to run a dungeon.

    The argument may be made that people could want to find a group for experience gain. If that is what someone wants, then they are clearly not concerned about the specific content, as long as it is level appropriate. Putting a filter on what they are after may well mean that they miss out on groups that would provide them with faster experience gain, simply because the group in question was not looking at that filter.

    Keep in mind, the notion of filters for content in an LFG system is to filter OUT players. It is to exclude. This should only exist if the game gives players a specific reason to NOT want to run a given piece of level appropriate content, not just because they may have a preference for a different piece of content.

    While I agree that pick-up groups for PvP in Ashes are challenging due to the lack of factions and inherent trust issues, I believe there’s still significant utility for an LFG system in these scenarios. Guilds, even large ones, may occasionally need to recruit additional players for events or world bosses, and smaller groups could benefit from joining forces with others. A well-designed LFG system can act as a bridge between groups of different sizes and objectives, fostering collaboration in situations where it might otherwise be difficult to connect.

    Regarding filters: while it’s true that filters can exclude, their primary purpose is to include. They create opportunities by connecting players with shared goals or preferences. Filters don't restrict players from being open to broader possibilities—they simply allow those who know exactly what they want to do to, in that moment, find like-minded players efficiently. At the same time, players who are open to "anything" can simply forego filters and still be included in general group searches. In this way, the system is inherently non-limiting and player-driven.

    This level of flexibility makes the system adaptable to Ashes’ unique design and can be applied across its various systems—not just dungeons, but also quests, open-world events, and more. By tailoring the system specifically to the game’s group-centric philosophy, it can enhance accessibility for all types of content.
  • I also want to mention that I'm not that passionate about a LFG tool, I have played without for many years and have had a great time without it. So if ashes do not implemented it, it won't be a problem for me.

    But I still see the potential benefits of a simple UI LFG tool.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    This level of flexibility makes the system adaptable to Ashes’ unique design and can be applied across its various systems—not just dungeons, but also quests, open-world events, and more.

    But this tool shouldn't be used for these things.

    Anything specific a player wants to do that requires a group, they should be encouraged to make friends and form a group from them.

    This LFG tool should exist to help people meet, not to help people run content.

    If it exists to help people run content - to mark things off their to-do list, it encourages people to not make friends in game, to just use the LFG system when they come across something that needs a group.

    This is what I said a while ago about an LFG system in Ashes needing to be about people, not content.

    You say that more flexibility means the system can be expanded to do these things - but the LFG system should not do those things.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    This level of flexibility makes the system adaptable to Ashes’ unique design and can be applied across its various systems—not just dungeons, but also quests, open-world events, and more.

    But this tool shouldn't be used for these things.

    Anything specific a player wants to do that requires a group, they should be encouraged to make friends and form a group from them.

    This LFG tool should exist to help people meet, not to help people run content.

    If it exists to help people run content - to mark things off their to-do list, it encourages people to not make friends in game, to just use the LFG system when they come across something that needs a group.

    This is what I said a while ago about an LFG system in Ashes needing to be about people, not content.

    You say that more flexibility means the system can be expanded to do these things - but the LFG system should not do those things.

    I don’t see the goals of an LFG system and fostering friendships as mutually exclusive. In fact, a well-designed LFG tool can enhance social interaction and help players form lasting connections while also facilitating content.

    It’s important to acknowledge that not everyone has an established network to rely on—especially newer players or those who play at less popular times. A LFG system helps these players meet others with similar goals and interests. These initial encounters can naturally grow into friendships, guild memberships, or even regular groups. In this sense, the system acts as a starting point for building relationships, not a replacement for them.

    The idea that an LFG system should focus solely on “people, not content” is a bit restrictive. In a game like Ashes, content is inherently tied to the community experience. Whether it’s a dungeon, quest, or event, these activities are opportunities to connect with others.

    A robust LFG system doesn’t detract from the social aspect of Ashes—it supports it. By bringing players together, whether for content or companionship, the system fosters collaboration, creates shared experiences, and strengthens the overall community. Rather than limiting what the system can do, we should ensure it’s designed to facilitate both short-term goals and long-term relationships.
  • As I said before the system is called a TAVERN.

    Your character goes to the location (not some part of yor UI), and then you use local chat to ask if anyone would like to form a group for X dungeon, OR if any group wants a lvl L class C.

    THAT is the system.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Lodrig wrote: »
    As I said before the system is called a TAVERN.

    Your character goes to the location (not some part of yor UI), and then you use local chat to ask if anyone would like to form a group for X dungeon, OR if any group wants a lvl L class C.

    THAT is the system.

    The simple reason why this isn't quite as good (without being a bit odd) is that if a group of 8 forms and is doing something in one area, and one person has to leave, disconnects, or even 'mentions that they will need to go in 15m', that group is not at the Tavern to recruit a new member to join them.

    This isn't an issue or anything, after all, this is a world where every Citizen of a Node can talk to every other no matter where they are, probably, I'm just reminding that the Tavern board isn't likely to be the way this works out for non-roleplayers (and even for some roleplayers).
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • Lodrig wrote: »
    As I said before the system is called a TAVERN.

    Your character goes to the location (not some part of yor UI), and then you use local chat to ask if anyone would like to form a group for X dungeon, OR if any group wants a lvl L class C.

    THAT is the system.

    A non-UI solution is fine for a low population where the local chat won't be flying by.

    Problems arise when you have 50+ people of different levels, experience and needs look for people. A locka tavern char works, but it's just a big hurdle and bring with it some annoyens when you have a big population.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    I don’t see the goals of an LFG system and fostering friendships as mutually exclusive.

    Neither do I, which is why I am detailing for you how to make that happen.

    Allowing players to filter by content means people will look at the LFG system as a means to get updates. Not having a filter will see players look at the LFG system as a means of meeting people to run group content.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    I don’t see the goals of an LFG system and fostering friendships as mutually exclusive.

    Neither do I, which is why I am detailing for you how to make that happen.

    Allowing players to filter by content means people will look at the LFG system as a means to get updates. Not having a filter will see players look at the LFG system as a means of meeting people to run group content.

    I understand your concern, but I don’t think filters change the fundamental purpose of the LFG system. Filters don’t force players to exclude others—they simply allow people to narrow their focus when needed.

    For example, the system could use tags. Groups could select a few relevant tags for their activity, allowing players to sort by those tags if they wish. However, the group would still be visible to players who haven’t applied any filters. This way, the system remains inclusive while also providing practical tools for finding groups efficiently.

    In a large game with many players, a non-filtered system could quickly become overwhelming due to the sheer number of listings. Even with fewer listings, filters help players find something that fits their current goals without wasting time sifting through irrelevant options.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    In a large game with many players, a non-filtered system could quickly become overwhelming due to the sheer number of listings.

    Sure, but this isn't an issue in Ashes - since it would be a requirement for this LFG system to only work within the one given node and perhaps it's neighbors.

    You are already losing 90% of players on the server due to them not being in a location that allows you to group with them in any reasonable way - there is no need to filter out more than that.

  • rikardp98rikardp98 Member
    edited November 26
    Noaani wrote: »
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    In a large game with many players, a non-filtered system could quickly become overwhelming due to the sheer number of listings.

    Sure, but this isn't an issue in Ashes - since it would be a requirement for this LFG system to only work within the one given node and perhaps it's neighbors.

    You are already losing 90% of players on the server due to them not being in a location that allows you to group with them in any reasonable way - there is no need to filter out more than that.

    The projected current users per realm is 8-10k, with an initial limited number of users of 15k. Which will later be 50k.

    10% is 0.8-1.5k users, and let's say only 10% of those are looking for a group. That is 80-150 people looking for a group. Let's say 50% of them is in a group, that's is still 40-75 active listings. That is quite a lot for people to go through.

    This is just random numbers that technically have no meaning. I do believe that ashes will have a large player base, and 8-15k may be underestimating the total amount of active players on one server. And 10% looking for a group may be overestimating.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    This is just random numbers that technically have no meaning.
    Indeed, and some of the base numbers you started with are themselves wrong.

    That 50k was the total number of players on a server - it was never the concurrent number.

    There has also never been a claim of 15k concurrent.

    The only actual statement is 8-10k concurrent.

    The notion of being able to be flagged LFG while in a group is something you should assume won't happen.

    The notion that there could be as many as 75 people flagged as LFG but none of them managed to put a group together from that pool is something you should assume won't happen. If it did happen, the only thing I know is that I don't want to group with any of those people, as they are either incompetent or lazy.

    The reality is, with this system in place, we will likely see no more than 30 players LFG at any one node, across all level ranges.

    This is why a system like this needs to be used with the intent to just find *A* group, not to find a group to do something specific.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    rikardp98 wrote: »
    This is just random numbers that technically have no meaning.
    Indeed, and some of the base numbers you started with are themselves wrong.

    That 50k was the total number of players on a server - it was never the concurrent number.

    There has also never been a claim of 15k concurrent.

    The only actual statement is 8-10k concurrent.

    The notion of being able to be flagged LFG while in a group is something you should assume won't happen.

    The notion that there could be as many as 75 people flagged as LFG but none of them managed to put a group together from that pool is something you should assume won't happen. If it did happen, the only thing I know is that I don't want to group with any of those people, as they are either incompetent or lazy.

    The reality is, with this system in place, we will likely see no more than 30 players LFG at any one node, across all level ranges.

    This is why a system like this needs to be used with the intent to just find *A* group, not to find a group to do something specific.

    I see your perspective, but dismissing the potential for a large number of LFG users as “unlikely” or assuming it doesn’t require a better solution feels shortsighted. As the player base grows or during peak times, the number of LFG users could easily surpass 30.

    Ignoring this possibility and the need for efficiency prioritizes an ideal over practicality. The goal should be to create a system that scales well, supports diverse playstyles, and ensures players can find groups effectively, no matter how large or small the LFG pool is at any given time.
Sign In or Register to comment.