Announcements

Watch this space for important information on planned twitch streams, updates and more

Group finding suggestions

55 posts / 0 new
Last post
FalconStriker
FalconStriker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/18/2013 - 17:40
Group finding suggestions

So, instead of having a match making system like wow, I suggest against that, I have a much more engaging suggestion that people will like, I believe.

Definitely have a standard looking for group system like the old game though as an alternative.

But here's my suggestion, have a big hangout area, kinda like a tavern in a fantasy game, a place that's fun to lounge in. But aside from social stuff to do and interact with in these places you can find in all major sections based on level, it will have tables or something you can sit at and start a group, and set filters if you want, and have people sit at your table and discuss what mission or if the game has task forces or something like it, and form groups that way. Then you could have the group leader set the mission, it auto marks it on the map, and everyone goes to that, or have someone mass teleport them, or perhaps incorporate a teleporter that can be used to fast travel to the mission.

This would make grouping easier, give players control of who they team with, and still have LFG function to fill if people abandon.

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 58 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Well, as long as it is in

Well, as long as it is in addition to the more standard queue system then I don't see anything against it.

Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
If you have a tavern, you'll

If you have a tavern, you'll have RPers, and they're not going to be happy with an endless stream of LFG spam. Also, the limited number of tables would invite griefing. (People would just occupy the tables and reject all team requests, just to deny the tables to others.) It's hard to come up with anything in the 3D realm that avoids this. Best shot is still a window with a list.

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 hour ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I like the system GW2 has

I like the system GW2 has enough to mention it here. There's an LFG menu you can access by pressing the P button, and there's a small icon in the upper left corner of the screen to open that menu as well. The menu allows you to search for active squads in the different zones, you can be in say, Sparkfly Fen and be looking for squads that are looking for people in say Auric Basin, etc. If I could add anything, I would like it if your current zone were the default one that comes up as soon as you bring up the menu. That way, just being in the zone you want to be in will make it easier to find a team to join. I think another good idea is to have a sort of default "mustering area" in each zone. As CoT is not going to have war walls, I wonder how this would work, but having a known place to physically locate yourself if you want to find a team to join for a specific thing would be nice.

Another thing they have, is that anyone can open a new squad, but those are capped at, I believe, 10 people, unless you have purchased (with gems) a commander tag, which will allow you to form a squad of up to 50, which is only really desirable when doing bigger "meta events". You can do meta events with a less well organized group, or even with a bunch of loosely not-organized soloers just talking on map chat. The commander tag just gives you some air of authority that you at least put in the resources to buy it and gives people an icon on their map that represents you, so they can see where you are and follow etc. That's actually possible with just the mentor tag (which is free) as well, but all mentor tags are the same color (red with a white cross in it, like a Swiss army knife logo) while the commander tag can be any color you choose, so you can say stuff in chat like "were doing the Breached Wall jumping puzzle, look for the blue tag" etc.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 2 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
So many people like top poo

So many people like to poo poo ideas without trying to see how they can work. (I wrote that before you posted your response @radiac)

I think your idea is imaginative and immersive and I think it has merit. I like it and I can think of a way to make it work, too. Here's a rapid prototype brainstorm idea how it could be implemented:

  1. Sitting down at a table automatically opens up a group chat window for that table. Anyone else who sits at the table joins that table chat window without having to actually join any parties. I think this could work for RP too, since it allows them to ignore the other chat in the tavern.
  2. The first person who sits at a table is that table's moderator. If that person leaves, the next name in the chat list becomes the table moderator.
  3. Each table has a title. This title can be edited by the table moderator at any time. The title is a 12? character text string that can be seen by all people in the tavern. A list of all the tables' titles can be viewed at the hostess station in the tavern. Probably by clicking on some interactive object like a bulletin board, or interacting with the hostess.
  4. other instances of the tavern will open up if it gets crowded. The list of tables in each instance of the tavern will include all instances of the tavern, so it will have to include which instance it is in, and characters should have the ability to switch to other instances of their choosing.
  5. when the moderator first opens a table, they are given the option of making it a LFG table. They can also change the table chat to a LFG lobby at any time, and back again. If you want to know what I mean by a LFG lobby, take a look at the Blade and Soul LFG tool, which is superlative of all the LFG tools I've ever experienced. Tables marked as LFG tables will also be marked LFG in the list of tables.

@Falcon Striker, do you think that could work with your idea, or were you imagining something else?

Here's a link to the Blade and Sould LFG lobby. http://gamerslife.guru/using-the-blade-soul-dungeon-party-finder/


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Interdictor
Interdictor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 52 min 28 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/22/2013 - 05:26
I'll be honest - I really can

I'll be honest - I really can't see myself use such a system very often - mainly because it would force everyone to have to be in that one spot in order to create the team. To me it's just easier to open up a teaming window and use the list, or just type "level x, class x, LFT" or "team looking for more" on a global channel. RPers would probably love such a system to death though, so it has some merit I suppose.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 2 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Interdictor wrote:
Interdictor wrote:

I'll be honest - I really can't see myself use such a system very often - mainly because it would force everyone to have to be in that one spot in order to create the team. To me it's just easier to open up a teaming window and use the list, or just type "level x, class x, LFT" or "team looking for more" on a global channel. RPers would probably love such a system to death though, so it has some merit I suppose.

I don't think this was intended to be an exclusive. Like @Blacke4Dawn said, this would be mere an alternate, more immersive, means of finding and forming groups; with the added benefit of socializing first instead of just using the UI tools.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
To be clear, I'm writing this

To be clear, I'm writing this as a former CoH player and not in any kind of "representing MWM" capacity.

Huckleberry wrote:

So many people like to poo poo ideas without trying to see how they can work.

Yes, and some of us remember the great uninhabited expanse that was the Arena lobby on the one hand, and have seen too much griefing of limited resources on the other.

Back in Tabula Rasa, there were a couple times the devs had an in-game event where they talked to all of us. And every bloody time there were several players setting off their flashiest, noisiest AoE attacks right on top of all of us. No damage of course... we just couldn't see, and if we had a weak gaming rig, it could grind down to slide show frame rates.

Almost any system that involves a location-restricted, finite number of interactive objects which can be individually locked by players is going to invite griefing. The key is the locking, e.g. "sit down at the table and it's yours." If you're going to propose such a system, make sure to say what mechanism is going to stop the griefers.

Don't take my skepticism as "without trying to see how it works" because there's a lot of prior art. Also don't take my skepticism as a statement that it absolutely cannot work.

Huckleberry wrote:

Here's a link to the Blade and Sould LFG lobby.

That is a working system, and I have no problems with it. It does not have a limited resource at any point in the process: invitations and party forming are handled through a menu, and the staging area that everyone is teleported to is instanced. Including a means in the staging area to repair weapons and interact with your bank is genius, IMHO.

Something similar could be done with the tables so long as being at a table doesn't lock it. So the most that happens is you get a lot of people crowded around the table, and you prevent people from taking the table, setting the title to "GIVE ME 100k IGC TO LEAVE," and camping.

Maybe each table could correspond to a different task force or similar. Then you can just look and see which TFs need or have people. Then anyone at the table could look through the list of players at the table, check off the ones they want to form a team with, hit "PROPOSE", and if everyone else clicks OK the team is formed and off you go. That prevents someone hogging the mod slot.

Spawning new tavern instances is risky because you can get instances that are individually full but never get enough people together for a given task to start it, so you get logjammed. And it sucks when your friends are all in full instances. This happened a lot with Hami raids.

Just some ideas. No idea what's going to be in the actual game.

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 19 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
I'm so old school, I actually

I'm so old school, I actually enjoyed traveling to the different zones and seeing for myself if there were any groups hanging around the Contact to start a Task Force or a Strike Force. One quick conversation later and ...


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 hour ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I haven't played MTGO in

I haven't played MTGO in years but back when it was fairly new, they had a graphically represented "room" where al matches were being playted at "tables" by avatars. That room got to be like WAY to big to be managable in any real sense and I think they scrapped it. It would be nice to have areas, rooms, buildings, etc where people tend to congregate while waiting to get in a team or whatever for an event. They could be different in different areas, I would expect. In one zone it might be the park near the secret entrance to the raid, in another it might be a seedy dive bar, in another it might be a military base like in the Crash Site in old CoX, etc. It would be nice to have some vendors there to sell your loots to and maybe an AH portal, crafting station, NPCs, bank/storage access etc. In GW2 not all such areas are fully stocked with all of the NPCs and vedors, so you tend to remember the ones that have the stuff you want in the right places.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 54 min 47 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Part of the design is to

Part of the design is to create player activity hubs where selling, crafting, and other things occur to provide that common place people can meet up. Of course, even better is when players naturally congregate at a location of their own choosing. There is a bit that goes into the map design by the devs which can encourage such locales, but it is the players that really make it work out.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 hour ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
On some college campuses, the

On some college campuses, the legend has it that they didn't place all the walkways right from the get-go, but rather they waited until the students trampled down the grass to see where putting in a walkway might be needed/helpful. Maybe over time you could add in more NPCs and vendor stuff in areas that appear to be ad-hoc meeting hubs as you identify them.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 55 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
It would be neat to see the

It would be neat to see the NPC community reacting to trends in PC behavior. So, when a spot becomes popular, more vendors move in, to take advantage of the traffic.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Voldine
Voldine's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 10:57
As long as we also have a

As long as we also have a version of the LFT setting from CoX where we could just set a flag on our character and people could check a list to fill holes. I don't want to have to join a queue just to team up with people for one mission, then never see them again.

The original Lady of Ysgard. -Virtue

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 58 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

On some college campuses, the legend has it that they didn't place all the walkways right from the get-go, but rather they waited until the students trampled down the grass to see where putting in a walkway might be needed/helpful. Maybe over time you could add in more NPCs and vendor stuff in areas that appear to be ad-hoc meeting hubs as you identify them.

To me, in general, that would just be "common sense" and part of natural development over time. I mean that is just part of responding to the needs and/or wants of ones users and customers.

For MWM specifically since they will expand the map over time they can't fully predict where people will congregate, especially in the areas that previously were at the edge of the map.

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 20 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
I liked what CoH/V had to

I liked what CoH/V had to offer, but my methods changed over the years. At first, sure, I used /search because I didn't even know what global chat channels were. And after the Inf sellers showed up, I remained on /hide pretty much all the time to keep them from finding me and spamming my mailbox. So no one could find me on /search and therefore it was functionally useless to me and others. Additionally, my global channel involvement was heavy as I was a moderator in most of the ones I resided in. It was pretty much my guaranteed way to either find a team or advertise a team. It was great because no matter what side you were on, you could see it, not just limited to the Rogue Isles or Paragon City zone Broadcast chatter. And that's not to say that I didn't have those enabled, I did, but it just wasn't my inherent go-to for teams.

As for a queue system, I've never been a fan. From TSW to SWTOR to everything else I've played, I've almost exclusively avoided it. I guess I don't like the randomness of when it's going to pop. If I'm in the middle of something and I get the pop-up, chances are I'm not going to want to do it because I'm already involved in doing something. I'm very task oriented and don't like remaining idle, so I also incredibly dislike just sitting around and just waiting for it to pop.

I'm not saying to not implement a queue system, I'm just voicing my perspective. I actually think it should be implemented because of so many people these days playing games that have such a system and therefore it would appeal to them if CoT also had it. It would be expected, or you run the risk of being panned and criticized for not having something that people probably consider standard in this MMO era. I'm not implying that MWM should concede to public opinion or pressure or expectations or what have you, but how things are done these days should at least be considered for relevance.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 hour ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Personally I would much

Personally I would much rather be able to see the current composition of the group I'm joining than have to blindly jump in a queue and take whatever I get. It would be nice to be able to join a team that already contains people I know and like, or to be able to pass on a team that contains people I would rather avoid. So I think the queue system has its deficiencies.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 19 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
My personal preference is to

My personal preference is to have a Contact NPC at a known location (for Task Forces and Strike Forces and the like) and just let people naturally congregate around them there. Want to join a Synapse Task Force? Go stand by Synapse and chat with people to start a group. That method always worked so much better than any "automated" group matching tool. Makes the game more sociable and less ... disposable.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 55 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
I'd like to be able to flag

I'd like to be able to flag myself LFG and the sorts of content I'd prefer to play, so I'm searchable. On the other hand, I do enjoy the sort of ad-hoc on-the-fly grouping done in GW2, as well. It would be great if, when characters meet and work together on some content, that a 'want to team-up?' flag might pop up.

Be Well!
Fireheart

WarBird
WarBird's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/17/2013 - 19:11
I hope to see a combination

I hope to see a combination of the top few suggestions I've seen here:

1) An easy to understand, and use, searchable interface that lets team leaders contact me. However, I intensely dislike being drafted from a "queue" without previous contact. Worse, having the computer pair me up automatically.

2) General gathering place(s) where I can go and RP my way onto a mission team, or recruit help. I seem to recall being shown architecture previews with big open areas for social gatherings. As an aid to this, It would be nice if there was some kind of a visible icon that you could float over your head that showed you were looking for/already on a team.

3) An NPC or landmark associated with major events like TF equivalents where I can go mooch around hoping to get a PUG. It would be nice if there was a little space available there to accommodate several groups forming simultaneously. (See icon idea above)

Not trying to hijack the thread here,but the more I think about it, the more the floating "PICK ME" and "SPOKEN FOR" icons sound like a good idea. They could just be an emote type thing. Maybe you could toggle on and off self visibility?

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 hour ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
As far as I know, the GW2

As far as I know, the GW2 system is pretty close to what I would want. First, the LFG window lists teams that are looking for more people, not people looking for teams. Second, it breaks it down by zone and by content type. If I could add in some way to have it, by default, quick-show you the TF you're in the "neighborhood" for when clicked, that would be good, and also I'd like to see the current list of people on each team.

For that matter, I would want all TF type content to have an obvious or logical place to go for forming teams. CoX probably could have been improved by having a fairly obvious official Incarnate Trial team-formation area. As it was the cool kids changed where they were forming teams a lot (it was the dance club, then the base in the Crash Site, then the vendor area in new DA, etc).

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Interdictor
Interdictor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 52 min 28 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/22/2013 - 05:26
WarBird wrote:
WarBird wrote:

I hope to see a combination of the top few suggestions I've seen here:
1) An easy to understand, and use, searchable interface that lets team leaders contact me. However, I intensely dislike being drafted from a "queue" without previous contact. Worse, having the computer pair me up automatically.
2) General gathering place(s) where I can go and RP my way onto a mission team, or recruit help. I seem to recall being shown architecture previews with big open areas for social gatherings. As an aid to this, It would be nice if there was some kind of a visible icon that you could float over your head that showed you were looking for/already on a team.
3) An NPC or landmark associated with major events like TF equivalents where I can go mooch around hoping to get a PUG. It would be nice if there was a little space available there to accommodate several groups forming simultaneously. (See icon idea above)
Not trying to hijack the thread here,but the more I think about it, the more the floating "PICK ME" and "SPOKEN FOR" icons sound like a good idea. They could just be an emote type thing. Maybe you could toggle on and off self visibility?

I agree with all this, though I'm not sure a "spoken for" or "NOT looking for team" icon is really necessary as long as you have an "I'm actively looking for a team" icon. The absence of the "LFT" should signify that you are not looking for a team. Don't want to clutter the UI up too much, and it will make the people actively LFT stand out more.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 hour ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Interdictor wrote:
Interdictor wrote:

WarBird wrote:
I hope to see a combination of the top few suggestions I've seen here:
1) An easy to understand, and use, searchable interface that lets team leaders contact me. However, I intensely dislike being drafted from a "queue" without previous contact. Worse, having the computer pair me up automatically.
2) General gathering place(s) where I can go and RP my way onto a mission team, or recruit help. I seem to recall being shown architecture previews with big open areas for social gatherings. As an aid to this, It would be nice if there was some kind of a visible icon that you could float over your head that showed you were looking for/already on a team.
3) An NPC or landmark associated with major events like TF equivalents where I can go mooch around hoping to get a PUG. It would be nice if there was a little space available there to accommodate several groups forming simultaneously. (See icon idea above)
Not trying to hijack the thread here,but the more I think about it, the more the floating "PICK ME" and "SPOKEN FOR" icons sound like a good idea. They could just be an emote type thing. Maybe you could toggle on and off self visibility?
I agree with all this, though I'm not sure a "spoken for" or "NOT looking for team" icon is really necessary as long as you have an "I'm actively looking for a team" icon. The absence of the "LFT" should signify that you are not looking for a team. Don't want to clutter the UI up too much, and it will make the people actively LFT stand out more.

This thinking assumes that people looking to fill up teams will be sending invites to people by looking people up on the system. If you go with a system whereby the people look up the teams, there's a lot less "cold calling" going on where you ask and they say no. Instead, you have a windoiw that shows all the teams currently operating in the zone you're in, it's max size and current size, and what the team's "description" is, as written by the leader. So if you're doing some outdoor zones content now and are looking forward to starting a TF soon you'd put that in the team description so that when people enter that zone and go looking for teams, they can see how big your team is and what you're doing/probably going to do soon. I think this is way better than making the team leaders have to headhunt for people individually.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Interdictor
Interdictor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 52 min 28 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/22/2013 - 05:26
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

Interdictor wrote:
WarBird wrote:
I hope to see a combination of the top few suggestions I've seen here:
1) An easy to understand, and use, searchable interface that lets team leaders contact me. However, I intensely dislike being drafted from a "queue" without previous contact. Worse, having the computer pair me up automatically.
2) General gathering place(s) where I can go and RP my way onto a mission team, or recruit help. I seem to recall being shown architecture previews with big open areas for social gatherings. As an aid to this, It would be nice if there was some kind of a visible icon that you could float over your head that showed you were looking for/already on a team.
3) An NPC or landmark associated with major events like TF equivalents where I can go mooch around hoping to get a PUG. It would be nice if there was a little space available there to accommodate several groups forming simultaneously. (See icon idea above)
Not trying to hijack the thread here,but the more I think about it, the more the floating "PICK ME" and "SPOKEN FOR" icons sound like a good idea. They could just be an emote type thing. Maybe you could toggle on and off self visibility?
I agree with all this, though I'm not sure a "spoken for" or "NOT looking for team" icon is really necessary as long as you have an "I'm actively looking for a team" icon. The absence of the "LFT" should signify that you are not looking for a team. Don't want to clutter the UI up too much, and it will make the people actively LFT stand out more.
This thinking assumes that people looking to fill up teams will be sending invites to people by looking people up on the system. If you go with a system whereby the people look up the teams, there's a lot less "cold calling" going on where you ask and they say no. Instead, you have a windoiw that shows all the teams currently operating in the zone you're in, it's max size and current size, and what the team's "description" is, as written by the leader. So if you're doing some outdoor zones content now and are looking forward to starting a TF soon you'd put that in the team description so that when people enter that zone and go looking for teams, they can see how big your team is and what you're doing/probably going to do soon. I think this is way better than making the team leaders have to headhunt for people individually.

I think you misunderstand. I'm not talking about icons in the teamfinder window (by all means the more info there the better) - I'm talking about a "LFT" icon floating above the character's head as Warbird suggested. If everyone had both a "yes" or "no" icon above their head it would be a bit messy and make it more difficult to pick out the "yeses".

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 55 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Okay, but 'people looking up

Okay, but 'people looking up teams' means you get strangers barging into your team. You might be perfectly happy with your 4-person team, but some other folks push in and take over your content. That also puts 'team make-up' in the hands of others. GW2 suffers less from this, as their teams are all 'small'.

I agree that people ought to be able to Search for teams based on content and then enter into negotiation with the team for inclusion. Being able to flag the Players for content will make the 'cold-calling' issue easier. An issue with CoH was that team leaders could/would Ignore a 'not looking' flag and blind invite anyone. And they'd get upset if a person didn't accept the team, automatically.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 hour ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I believe in GW2 team leaders

I believe in GW2 team leaders (they usually have commander tags) can set the team's status to "no longer looking for new members". I have no idea if this actually prevents people from getting on a team against the leader's will or not, but I think the leader can and should be allowed to lock the team if they want to, or just hide the team's existence on the search system so that people can't find you if you don't want them to. Also unwanted new members can be kicked.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 55 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Don't unwanted team members

Don't unwanted team members have to be 'voted-off' in order to kick them? (In GW2)

Be Well!
Fireheart

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 58 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Don't unwanted team members have to be 'voted-off' in order to kick them? (In GW2)
Be Well!
Fireheart

No sure, but also don't really see the relevance since we are discussing how we want it implemented here.

So I think the best method of implementation it would be if a team is looking for more to fill it out the leader has to explicitly flag them for it and randoms can only "self-invite" to a team with that flag on.

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 20 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Self-invites? Yeah, no. Not a

Self-invites? Yeah, no. Not a fan and against the idea. If I'm looking to fill a team, I want control over who/want joins it, not the other way around. If the team could use some form of support character and yet another DPS joins it just because there's an open spot, AND we have to take a team vote to get rid of them? Again, not for me. As an option, sure I'm not that much against it, just don't have it be mandatory.

Interdictor
Interdictor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 52 min 28 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/22/2013 - 05:26
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:

Self-invites? Yeah, no. Not a fan and against the idea. If I'm looking to fill a team, I want control over who/want joins it, not the other way around. If the team could use some form of support character and yet another DPS joins it just because there's an open spot, AND we have to take a team vote to get rid of them? Again, not for me. As an option, sure I'm not that much against it, just don't have it be mandatory.

Agreed - the team leader should have ultimate authority on who joins and who gets kicked. An OPTION to auto-fill I can get behind for those times when you really don't care who joins - because I have to admit some of the most fun I had in CoH were with very unconventional teams.

Dark Ether
Dark Ether's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 7 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:26
It's too easy for a self

It's too easy for a self-invite system to attract trolls who will join and then bail when you need a full team.

(insert pithy comment here)

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 54 min 47 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
After reading the continued

After reading the continued discussion how does the following sound:

LFG menu options:
Group Leader:
Auto-fill (can be set by All Options, level ranges, ATs, specified content type, prioritized by relatuonships - all, super team, league, friends, other) the team spots will auto-fill based on the group leader's settings and those players in the auto-fill queue who meet those settings

Invite Only: the group leader can set restrictions (leader only, or all team members) to send invites. Search options are as listed above.

Players seeking teams:
Auto-fill: player will automaticall join a team seeking players to join in the auto queue.
Invite only: the player can only be invited directly and can set themselves to accept invites automatically based on criteria (options listed above)
Hidden: will not appear in any group search criteria

Group removal:
The group leader can set permissions to silence and remove group members, leader only or entire group. This will probably be a menu option.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 58 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

After reading the continued discussion how does the following sound:
LFG menu options:
Group Leader:
Auto-fill (can be set by All Options, level ranges, ATs, specified content type, prioritized by relatuonships - all, super team, league, friends, other) the team spots will auto-fill based on the group leader's settings and those players in the auto-fill queue who meet those settings
Invite Only: the group leader can set restrictions (leader only, or all team members) to send invites. Search options are as listed above.
Players seeking teams:
Auto-fill: player will automaticall join a team seeking players to join in the auto queue.
Invite only: the player can only be invited directly and can set themselves to accept invites automatically based on criteria (options listed above)
Hidden: will not appear in any group search criteria
Group removal:
The group leader can set permissions to silence and remove group members, leader only or entire group. This will probably be a menu option.

Very good imo.

Though I would take a page from Revelation Online and add in the possibility for single players to ask for in invite from a team that then has to be approved by the team leader. The ways they have done it is that their group finding tool and formulate a chat message (has to be manually sent in chat) that contains a clickable link for requesting in the invite. One can also use the right-click menu and choose it from there. The advantage is that this request contains class and level info so the leader doesn't have to look that up before inviting, nor would there be a need for the one requesting the invite to supply it.

Hmm, thinking one step further having the auto-fill mentioned above be an "automation system" layered on top of this would probably be the best way to implement it.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 2 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
I think that's a nice

I think that's a nice improvement over the LFG we're used to.

I found three things missing, however.

First, I did not see any criteria for the content. I think it would useful if a player looking for a group, especially in the autofill or auto-accept invite, that the player can select which content he or she wants to join.

I know that if I was looking for a team for a specific Task Force, and I kept getting autofilled or auto-invited for every other task force I would be frustrated. I would then remove myself from autofill and auto-invite, but then no one would know I was looking for that particular task force (using the LFG tool). I would have to go about trying to advertise the task force on all the chat channels, as if there was no LFG tool at all. So if we are going to have a LFG tool, we might as well include the ability to set preferred content.

Likewise in the auto-invite portion of the leader looking for players. There should also be a selection of the content the leader wants to partake, so the invite can (1) state the intent of the group, and/or (2) automatically filter for players looking for the same content.

Some of the content filters I would suggest:

  • General leveling
  • single-team content, further selectible by name
  • multi-team content, further selectible by name
  • mission architect missions
  • PvP

Second, Also missing from your LFG tool proposal is any indication of how character level will play a role.
Will the system automatically filter for eligibility or level proximity? Will the system automatically allow for level synching? I don't ever want to make a "Gear Score" minimum something a teamleader can set. This just leads to insanity and elitism. But there are probably system-level prerequisites hardwired into some content and I would like to defer to those.

Third, I would like to see the ability to sort by whether this is the first time running through content or not.
People running through content for the first time will want to read the mission text, consider the moral consequences of their actions, and try to work out any puzzles or problems. People running through content for the twelfth time will just want to get it done. In my experience the latter rarely has time for the former and the first-timers are often told to hurry up or are left behind. I have found, however, that often if the games inform the entire party before the instance starts that there is at least one player in the group who is experiencing this content for the first time, that even veterans can be more patient. So I guess I am asking for two things here: (1) allow first timers to choose whether they want to run content with other first-timers, and allow group leaders the option of making them veteran-only(a.k.a. speed run), mixed, or first-timer only. and (2) mark first timers or otherwise notify the party that there is a first-timer in the group.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Interdictor
Interdictor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 52 min 28 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/22/2013 - 05:26
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

First, I did not see any criteria for the content. I think it would useful if a player looking for a group, especially in the autofill or auto-accept invite, that the player can select which content he or she wants to join.
I know that if I was looking for a team for a specific Task Force, and I kept getting autofilled or auto-invited for every other task force I would be frustrated. I would then remove myself from autofill and auto-invite, but then no one would know I was looking for that particular task force (using the LFG tool). I would have to go about trying to advertise the task force on all the chat channels, as if there was no LFG tool at all. So if we are going to have a LFG tool, we might as well include the ability to set preferred content.
Likewise in the auto-invite portion of the leader looking for players. There should also be a selection of the content the leader wants to partake, so the invite can (1) state the intent of the group, and/or (2) automatically filter for players looking for the same content.
Some of the content filters I would suggest:General levelingsingle-team content, further selectible by namemulti-team content, further selectible by namemission architect missionsPvP

Actually - he did include "Specified Content Type". Or did you mean down to the actual mission? COnsidering the amount of content in a MMO that could get unweidly with something like a drop-down - maybe a fillable message box where you can type it in yourself?

Quote:

Second, Also missing from your LFG tool proposal is any indication of how character level will play a role.Will the system automatically filter for eligibility or level proximity? Will the system automatically allow for level synching? I don't ever want to make a "Gear Score" minimum something a teamleader can set. This just leads to insanity and elitism. But there are probably system-level prerequisites hardwired into some content and I would like to defer to those.

Again - "Level Ranges" is in his example. Maybe he edited his post while you were typing......or maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Quote:

Third, I would like to see the ability to sort by whether this is the first time running through content or not.People running through content for the first time will want to read the mission text, consider the moral consequences of their actions, and try to work out any puzzles or problems. People running through content for the twelfth time will just want to get it done. In my experience the latter rarely has time for the former and the first-timers are often told to hurry up or are left behind. I have found, however, that often if the games inform the entire party before the instance starts that there is at least one player in the group who is experiencing this content for the first time, that even veterans can be more patient. So I guess I am asking for two things here: (1) allow first timers to choose whether they want to run content with other first-timers, and allow group leaders the option of making them veteran-only(a.k.a. speed run), mixed, or first-timer only. and (2) mark first timers or otherwise notify the party that there is a first-timer in the group.

Hmmmmm......I'm not so sure I like this for two main reasons:
A) Knowing gamer culture, this has the possibility of making it much more DIFFICULT for first-timers to get excluded from certain content. I can see it now: Why would the "Vets" want to invite a "Noob" if he's only going to "Slow them down" or get the team wiped?

B) Character vs Player - that particular character might not have run through those mishes before, but the player might have participated in that TF multiple times with multiple characters.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 2 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Interdictor wrote:
Interdictor wrote:

Some of the content filters I would suggest:General levelingsingle-team content, further selectible by namemulti-team content, further selectible by namemission architect missionsPvP
Actually - he did include "Specified Content Type". Or did you mean down to the actual mission? COnsidering the amount of content in a MMO that could get unweidly with something like a drop-down - maybe a fillable message box where you can type it in yourself?

Interdictor wrote:

Again - "Level Ranges" is in his example. Maybe he edited his post while you were typing......or maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Hmmm. Either I'm completely blind and haven't leveled up my reading comprehension skills, or it was edited. Either way, you are right it is covered.

Interdictor wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Third, I would like to see the ability to sort by whether this is the first time running through content or not.People running through content for the first time will want to read the mission text, consider the moral consequences of their actions, and try to work out any puzzles or problems. People running through content for the twelfth time will just want to get it done. In my experience the latter rarely has time for the former and the first-timers are often told to hurry up or are left behind. I have found, however, that often if the games inform the entire party before the instance starts that there is at least one player in the group who is experiencing this content for the first time, that even veterans can be more patient. So I guess I am asking for two things here: (1) allow first timers to choose whether they want to run content with other first-timers, and allow group leaders the option of making them veteran-only(a.k.a. speed run), mixed, or first-timer only. and (2) mark first timers or otherwise notify the party that there is a first-timer in the group.

Hmmmmm......I'm not so sure I like this for two main reasons:
A) Knowing gamer culture, this has the possibility of making it much more DIFFICULT for first-timers to get excluded from certain content. I can see it now: Why would the "Vets" want to invite a "Noob" if he's only going to "Slow them down" or get the team wiped?
B) Character vs Player - that particular character might not have run through those mishes before, but the player might have participated in that TF multiple times with multiple characters.

(A)In my opinion, it is better to establish expectations up front. Better that the 'vets' know that there is a 'noob' in their party when they begin than to have to deal with the realization after the mission has started. So where do you want to take your pain?

From what I have seen in MMORPG communities, there are the vets who want nothing to do with noobs and then there are the vets who thrive on taking noobs under their wings. Some do it out of altruism, some do it to recruit for their guilds, others do it so they can show off. I have found that the number of willing mentors like this exceeds the number of impatient vets.

(B) this is why I mentioned that it is up to the player to determine his or her desires as well as the group leaders. If a player has run it with several characters already, they would not have to click the 'first timer' box for the LFG tool. Although the game would and should still notify the group when the mission starts that this character has not run it yet. Because I'm sure that even though the player has run it several times, there will be alignment issues the character would still need to read through and decide upon. And if the player still doesn't care, that's what chat is for.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 20 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Third, I would like to see the ability to sort by whether this is the first time running through content or not.People running through content for the first time will want to read the mission text, consider the moral consequences of their actions, and try to work out any puzzles or problems. People running through content for the twelfth time will just want to get it done. In my experience the latter rarely has time for the former and the first-timers are often told to hurry up or are left behind. I have found, however, that often if the games inform the entire party before the instance starts that there is at least one player in the group who is experiencing this content for the first time, that even veterans can be more patient. So I guess I am asking for two things here: (1) allow first timers to choose whether they want to run content with other first-timers, and allow group leaders the option of making them veteran-only(a.k.a. speed run), mixed, or first-timer only. and (2) mark first timers or otherwise notify the party that there is a first-timer in the group.

Unless this is determined by the game itself knowing you've already accomplished this content on that specific character, I suspect this portion of the LFG System would be abused by a sizeable portion of the playerbase. In general, because people want to get through content fast and more efficiently, they're less willing to take on newbies. That means newbies are going to just set the flag (or whatever) to saying that they've done it before to increase their chances of getting an invite. And to some extent, they're going to be able to muddle their way through it before someone on the team figures out that they've never done it before (likely after they've wiped on a fight that the newb should have known). But since they've made it this far, and it always sucks to try and pick up someone after you've already started something like a TF/SF, they'll probably just end up sticking with the newb anyway instead of kicking them (or actually kick them). And if the game has anything like CoH/V had with Global Notes (and I hope to the shiny blue heavens that it does), that newbie is going to get pegged as someone to not invite in the future.

I would also suggest that all LFG System settings have a default that you can set so that you don't have to re-do it per character. Or, you know, for all settings, really.

As an aside, Global Notes are going to be a thing... right? As a moderator for a particularly heavy populated channel on Champion, I used these all the time, especially after silencing or removing someone.

Pyromantic
Pyromantic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 53 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/14/2013 - 08:20
I think there is a delicate

I think there is a delicate balancing act here. On the one hand, having difficulty finding teammates when you want them can put a real damper on the experience of the game. On the other hand, I think a system that links people into teams in an automatic sense has the unwanted side effect of making teammates feel disposable, which goes against the nature of the community that I feel is very important. For that reason, I'm actually against any automatic teaming that does not require a specific communication between a team leader and a potential teammate. I'm much more in favour of an interface that makes it extremely easy to identify and communicate with others--both new teammates for team leaders and team leaders for those searching for a team--while allowing people to block those communications if they want to keep their team as it is or go about their business solo.

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 20 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Pyromantic wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:

I'm much more in favour of an interface that makes it extremely easy to identify and communicate with others--both new teammates for team leaders and team leaders for those searching for a team--while allowing people to block those communications if they want to keep their team as it is or go about their business solo.

I actually meant to mention this in my post and I'm glad this reminded me. I'm all about customization and making stuff your own, but I also enjoy efficiency. As mentioned above in Pyromantic's whole post, balance is important. I'm not so much for options that whatever interface is implemented is so cluttered with flags and radials and drop-downs that no one uses it and just resorts to spamming CoT's version of Broadcast or Zonechat or global channels for a team. I actually prefer global channels, but that's neither here nor there and I digress enough as it is.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 2 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
huckleberry wrote:

Third, I would like to see the ability to sort by whether this is the first time running through content or not.People running through content for the first time will want to read the mission text, consider the moral consequences of their actions, and try to work out any puzzles or problems. People running through content for the twelfth time will just want to get it done. In my experience the latter rarely has time for the former and the first-timers are often told to hurry up or are left behind. I have found, however, that often if the games inform the entire party before the instance starts that there is at least one player in the group who is experiencing this content for the first time, that even veterans can be more patient. So I guess I am asking for two things here: (1) allow first timers to choose whether they want to run content with other first-timers, and allow group leaders the option of making them veteran-only(a.k.a. speed run), mixed, or first-timer only. and (2) mark first timers or otherwise notify the party that there is a first-timer in the group.

Unless this is determined by the game itself knowing you've already accomplished this content on that specific character, I suspect this portion of the LFG System would be abused by a sizeable portion of the playerbase. In general, because people want to get through content fast and more efficiently, they're less willing to take on newbies. That means newbies are going to just set the flag (or whatever) to saying that they've done it before to increase their chances of getting an invite. And to some extent, they're going to be able to muddle their way through it before someone on the team figures out that they've never done it before (likely after they've wiped on a fight that the newb should have known). But since they've made it this far, and it always sucks to try and pick up someone after you've already started something like a TF/SF, they'll probably just end up sticking with the newb anyway instead of kicking them (or actually kick them). And if the game has anything like CoH/V had with Global Notes (and I hope to the shiny blue heavens that it does), that newbie is going to get pegged as someone to not invite in the future.
I would also suggest that all LFG System settings have a default that you can set so that you don't have to re-do it per character. Or, you know, for all settings, really.
As an aside, Global Notes are going to be a thing... right? As a moderator for a particularly heavy populated channel on Champion, I used these all the time, especially after silencing or removing someone.

I don't see how what you are describing is any worse than if there was no filter and indication/notification at all.

An example of the notification I am referring to can be found in the dungeon runs of Tera where new players get a fairy:

or in FFXIV where the team gets this notice:

these are the kind of notices I am talking about that establish expectations up front before you find out that a player may not know what he or she is doing. They are taken care of by the system itself without any regard to whether the players marks themself as a first-timer or not.

What I am suggesting is not only to have a notification like this after the group has been formed (my (2) from above), but to also allow players the option of knowing this before they even get into the group (my (1) from above).


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 20 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Cobalt Azurean wrote:
huckleberry wrote:
Third, I would like to see the ability to sort by whether this is the first time running through content or not.People running through content for the first time will want to read the mission text, consider the moral consequences of their actions, and try to work out any puzzles or problems. People running through content for the twelfth time will just want to get it done. In my experience the latter rarely has time for the former and the first-timers are often told to hurry up or are left behind. I have found, however, that often if the games inform the entire party before the instance starts that there is at least one player in the group who is experiencing this content for the first time, that even veterans can be more patient. So I guess I am asking for two things here: (1) allow first timers to choose whether they want to run content with other first-timers, and allow group leaders the option of making them veteran-only(a.k.a. speed run), mixed, or first-timer only. and (2) mark first timers or otherwise notify the party that there is a first-timer in the group.
Unless this is determined by the game itself knowing you've already accomplished this content on that specific character, I suspect this portion of the LFG System would be abused by a sizeable portion of the playerbase. In general, because people want to get through content fast and more efficiently, they're less willing to take on newbies. That means newbies are going to just set the flag (or whatever) to saying that they've done it before to increase their chances of getting an invite. And to some extent, they're going to be able to muddle their way through it before someone on the team figures out that they've never done it before (likely after they've wiped on a fight that the newb should have known). But since they've made it this far, and it always sucks to try and pick up someone after you've already started something like a TF/SF, they'll probably just end up sticking with the newb anyway instead of kicking them (or actually kick them). And if the game has anything like CoH/V had with Global Notes (and I hope to the shiny blue heavens that it does), that newbie is going to get pegged as someone to not invite in the future.
I would also suggest that all LFG System settings have a default that you can set so that you don't have to re-do it per character. Or, you know, for all settings, really.
As an aside, Global Notes are going to be a thing... right? As a moderator for a particularly heavy populated channel on Champion, I used these all the time, especially after silencing or removing someone.
I don't see how what you are describing is any worse than if there was no filter and indication/notification at all.
An example of the notification I am referring to can be found in the dungeon runs of Tera where new players get a fairy:
or in FFXIV where the team gets this notice:
these are the kind of notices I am talking about that establish expectations up front before you find out that a player may not know what he or she is doing. They are taken care of by the system itself without any regard to whether the players marks themself as a first-timer or not.
What I am suggesting is not only to have a notification like this after the group has been formed (my (2) from above), but to also allow players the option of knowing this before they even get into the group (my (1) from above).

I was merely trying to illustrate the inherent limitations of a system that allows for the player to broadcast their measure of experience with a particular piece of content, and that the LFG system suggested above would really only work if the game determined it for them, which even then has it's limitations on a character-to-character basis. A player may have metric butt-tons of experience on other characters, but on that particular one? Nope, but that doesn't mean they're going to be bad because they could extrapolate their previous experience and apply where necessary. Conversely, just because someone has been through the content a bunch of times (e.g. farmers and potentially PLers, players with ZFTG) does NOT mean they're good at it. I also don't particularly like a game or system that identifies new players. It sounds like a great idea in theory, but I feel in practice that it just leads to seclusion because players generally want to get through their content efficiently, which usually doesn't involve bringing along someone that needs to have time taken out for content to be explained. The push for efficiency (i.e. get it done right meow) is further exacerbated by one of those graphics (2), where rewards are attached to 'swift completion of objectives'. Don't get me wrong, I'm do enjoy efficiently completing a task as we used to do speed runs daily, but talk about stacking the deck against inclusion of new players by rewarding speedy success. Yes, even as a speed runner, I'm against the idea of being rewarded by a system that would potentially lead to new players being excluded.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 hour ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I would assume that a person

I would assume that a person can invite their friends to a team and thus form a party or team or whatever we're calling it WITHOUT going public and opening that up to others. At that point you, as the leader of that team, would need to go find other teammates whom you deem suitable "the hard way" i.e. on your own by sending PMs and invites to individuals you can identify as desirable, hitting up SG mates, etc. This was tech that CoX had, and I would assume it's totally doable and not going to go away.

In addition to that, it would help, I feel, to have a way to advertise your PUG/large raid group in a way that other people interested in doing the same content might be able to jump in without any PMs or whatever. As a player, you'd just go looking on the LFG menu for "Stateman TF" in the appropriate place and you could join a Statesman TF that's currently looking for more people. At that point, you might have to change from the instance of the world map that you're on to the one the rest of the team is on (or maybe for some reason they'd rather jump to your instance). In GW2, this is an easy thing to do, you just join a squad, then right-click on somebody's name on the squad membership list, and select "Join in ____" and as long and you ans the other person are both in the same zone, you can hop to the other instance of that zone that the teammate is in. Or, if you have a few friends that need a few more to start a TF, you could form a team and then advertise that States TF on the LFG menu in an effort to recruit a few more, if you want to.

Tannim222's suggestion seems to have a pretty good handle on this, from what I can tell.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 2 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:

I was merely trying to illustrate the inherent limitations of a system that allows for the player to broadcast their measure of experience with a particular piece of content, and that the LFG system suggested above would really only work if the game determined it for them, which even then has it's limitations on a character-to-character basis. A player may have metric butt-tons of experience on other characters, but on that particular one? Nope, but that doesn't mean they're going to be bad because they could extrapolate their previous experience and apply where necessary. Conversely, just because someone has been through the content a bunch of times (e.g. farmers and potentially PLers, players with ZFTG) does NOT mean they're good at it. I also don't particularly like a game or system that identifies new players. It sounds like a great idea in theory, but I feel in practice that it just leads to seclusion because players generally want to get through their content efficiently, which usually doesn't involve bringing along someone that needs to have time taken out for content to be explained. The push for efficiency (i.e. get it done right meow) is further exacerbated by one of those graphics (2), where rewards are attached to 'swift completion of objectives'. Don't get me wrong, I'm do enjoy efficiently completing a task as we used to do speed runs daily, but talk about stacking the deck against inclusion of new players by rewarding speedy success. Yes, even as a speed runner, I'm against the idea of being rewarded by a system that would potentially lead to new players being excluded.

Again, you are bringing up issues that are no worse than not having the identification at all. Maybe I just don't understand your argument.

Let me see if I can restate your argument in an effort to understand it:
Are you perhaps saying that a leader will assign his or her group as 'veterans only' in order to avoid characters who may be a drag? And that this somehow makes things worse for people who identify themselves as first-timers?

If so, then I think there is a perspective you had not considered. I am saying that if players identify themselves as first-timers it is because they DO NOT WANT to do speed runs or "efficiency" runs. First timers identify themselves as such because they WANT to run it differently than veterans do. I think you are forgetting that perspective. The perspective of first-timers who want to take their time to read dialogue and consider options, to figure out puzzles by themselves, and try to learn the boss mechanics with their group together.

In my experience I have a much more enjoyable time when I play with a team that learns together and grows and succeeds after several failures. The elation one feels when one has fought hard for success is what keeps us coming back.

Once you consider that perspective, then it is not hard to see that a first-timer running a with a bunch of vets is probably going to enjoy it a lot less than the veterans you are identifying with who have to put up with the first-timer. Not everyone is a speed runner or wants to run content the most efficiently, and if we go into this with the perspective that everyone is, we will be disenfranchising a large portion of the playerbase. You will also be preventing the people who want to run it for the first time from finding each other. And you will be preventing guilds from helping first-timers through content as a recruiting tool. And you will be preventing mentors from running first-timers through content for some yet-to-be-determined mentor badge. (hint, hint, MWM)

And like I said, if someone really doesn't want to be treated as a first-timer, he or she can just not mark themselves as a first-timer. Again, not worse than your scenario.

Oh, and in FFXIV, the "swift completion of objectives" has no timer on it. You get the bonus if you succeed. I don't know why it says "swift". Some people surmise that "swift" means without wiping. There is a kind of quest that is timed. Such quests are called "Leves" and the faster you complete them the better your bonus is, but the swift bonus of Leves is independent of, but in addition to, first-timer bonus.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 20 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Cobalt Azurean wrote:
I was merely trying to illustrate the inherent limitations of a system that allows for the player to broadcast their measure of experience with a particular piece of content, and that the LFG system suggested above would really only work if the game determined it for them, which even then has it's limitations on a character-to-character basis. A player may have metric butt-tons of experience on other characters, but on that particular one? Nope, but that doesn't mean they're going to be bad because they could extrapolate their previous experience and apply where necessary. Conversely, just because someone has been through the content a bunch of times (e.g. farmers and potentially PLers, players with ZFTG) does NOT mean they're good at it. I also don't particularly like a game or system that identifies new players. It sounds like a great idea in theory, but I feel in practice that it just leads to seclusion because players generally want to get through their content efficiently, which usually doesn't involve bringing along someone that needs to have time taken out for content to be explained. The push for efficiency (i.e. get it done right meow) is further exacerbated by one of those graphics (2), where rewards are attached to 'swift completion of objectives'. Don't get me wrong, I'm do enjoy efficiently completing a task as we used to do speed runs daily, but talk about stacking the deck against inclusion of new players by rewarding speedy success. Yes, even as a speed runner, I'm against the idea of being rewarded by a system that would potentially lead to new players being excluded.
Again, you are bringing up issues that are no worse than not having the identification at all. Maybe I just don't understand your argument.
Let me see if I can restate your argument in an effort to understand it:
Are you perhaps saying that a leader will assign his or her group as 'veterans only' in order to avoid characters who may be a drag? And that this somehow makes things worse for people who identify themselves as first-timers?
If so, then I think there is a perspective you had not considered. I am saying that if players identify themselves as first-timers it is because they DO NOT WANT to do speed runs or "efficiency" runs. First timers identify themselves as such because they WANT to run it differently than veterans do. I think you are forgetting that perspective. The perspective of first-timers who want to take their time to read dialogue and consider options, to figure out puzzles by themselves, and try to learn the boss mechanics with their group together.
In my experience I have a much more enjoyable time when I play with a team that learns together and grows and succeeds after several failures. The elation one feels when one has fought hard for success is what keeps us coming back.
Once you consider that perspective, then it is not hard to see that a first-timer running a with a bunch of vets is probably going to enjoy it a lot less than the veterans you are identifying with who have to put up with the first-timer. Not everyone is a speed runner or wants to run content the most efficiently, and if we go into this with the perspective that everyone is, we will be disenfranchising a large portion of the playerbase. You will also be preventing the people who want to run it for the first time from finding each other. And you will be preventing guilds from helping first-timers through content as a recruiting tool. And you will be preventing mentors from running first-timers through content for some yet-to-be-determined mentor badge. (hint, hint, MWM)
And like I said, if someone really doesn't want to be treated as a first-timer, he or she can just not mark themselves as a first-timer. Again, not worse than your scenario.
Oh, and in FFXIV, the "swift completion of objectives" has no timer on it. You get the bonus if you succeed. I don't know why it says "swift". Some people surmise that "swift" means without wiping. There is a kind of quest that is timed. Such quests are called "Leves" and the faster you complete them the better your bonus is, but the swift bonus of Leves is independent of, but in addition to, first-timer bonus.

I stand corrected. It appears that I may have missed it, but it didn't seem like your flagging system was optional; as in, the examples you gave were things that couldn't be disabled, such as the fairy. If they could opt out of it, sure, that's fine. Or even if they opt-in, that's fine too of course, but it's their choice and for their own reasons, perhaps such as running content at a normal pace.

And all my argument was, which appears to have been at least partially based on a false notion, is that there are inherent problems with the methods of flagging, such as players (deceptively) flagging themselves or the system inadvertently doing it on a character-by-character basis, and that there really isn't a need for identifying anyone based on either their own perception of their abilities or the system's.

As for the perspective of the first-timer new players, I do and did consider it actually. I thought I clearly illustrated that with my lack of support for a possible system that could potentially cause them to not be included. Just because we, by default playstyle, were speed-runners didn't mean that we didn't run content at a normal pace, such as with our friends who didn't choose to or physically couldn't keep up with the pace of our playing. We constantly considered the perspective of our fellow players, especially when we would offer to show people how to run a particular iTrial or a Hami Raid or Mothership Raid, or even the Cathedral of Pain trial.

I actually liked the CoH/V /search LFG system. It was simple and straight-forward. Mind you, and I've mentioned this previously, I didn't use it later on in lieu of global channels (due to gold farmers finding people on /search and spamming their inboxes, so I remained on /hide permanently and never had a problem with them; also the ability to reach all sides of the game via channels which I felt was the severest limitation of the /search system), but I didn't see any immediately overwhelming problems with it (other than previously mentioned), especially since players had a positive tendency to put what their primary and secondary powersets in their Comments, so at least you would know what you were getting in terms of abilities. As to the caliber of their capability... well, I don't think there's a truly intuitive way to determine that with a flagging system that doesn't have flaws in it reflective of either the abuse of the player or the limitations of the system. Leave it up to the players to determine if someone is "good" or "veteran enough" to play with them, I say. <--- Shameless plug for Global Notes.

On that note, I apologize if it seems like I nitpick ideas and don't offer solutions. My considerations for answers usually come to me in a moment of "Eureka!" after ruminating on many options, and while I tend to get lost in the minutiae and distracted by digression, I have always been better at noting the flaws in something. I just don't want it to seem like I'm irreverently poo-pooing on your idea for no reason other than to do so.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 2 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:

I stand corrected. It appears that I may have missed it, but it didn't seem like your flagging system was optional; as in, the examples you gave were things that couldn't be disabled, such as the fairy.
On that note, I apologize if it seems like I nitpick ideas and don't offer solutions. My considerations for answers usually come to me in a moment of "Eureka!" after ruminating on many options, and while I tend to get lost in the minutiae and distracted by digression, I have always been better at noting the flaws in something. I just don't want it to seem like I'm irreverently poo-pooing on your idea for no reason other than to do so.

Oh well, I suppose that's what I get for trying to discuss two things at once.
(1) The ability to use "first-time" as a filter for the LFG tool. Of course, that would depend on the selected content. In my mind, I had this as being optional.
(2) The notification that a player is a first-timer that appears after a team enters the content was not optional in my mind. The fairy from TERA is not an option. It shows up on the first-timers after they enter the instance automatically, without any choice by the players. Just like how FFXIV automatically puts that pop-up notice once the team enters the instance. The difference is that FFXIV doesn't tell the team which players are running it for the first time, just that there is at least one. This is to establish expectations early, so people don't start raging when a teammate doesn't know the boss mechanics or the puzzles, etc.

I did not mean to imply that the fairy was always flying around new players even out of the instance. That really would be insensitive towards new players. And like you also said, it would be disingenuous on veteran players running new characters.

... but if a new player really did want to fly a flag out in gen pop that said "Hey, I'm new, help me" then I suppose it wouldn't hurt to make one. Maybe like a little dronepedia flying around the character that the player can interact with to answer questions or check some sort of in-game help wiki. But that is a conversation for another thread.

Cobalt Azurean wrote:

On that note, I apologize if it seems like I nitpick ideas and don't offer solutions. My considerations for answers usually come to me in a moment of "Eureka!" after ruminating on many options, and while I tend to get lost in the minutiae and distracted by digression, I have always been better at noting the flaws in something. I just don't want it to seem like I'm irreverently poo-pooing on your idea for no reason other than to do so.

OMG am I ever going to to live down my no-poo-pooing pontification? Oh well. ;-P
On the contrary, I think your comments were phrased in a such a way as to elicit dialogue rather than shut it down. I will gladly enter into a discussion of ideas with people who disagree with me. It either helps me to improve upon them or makes me realize my errors. And I think it is better for the community to see a lively exchange of opinions.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 20 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

OMG am I ever going to to live down my no-poo-pooing pontification? Oh well. ;-

Don't worry. I can't say I'm familiar with that, but my post was more about my personal tendency to poke holes in ideas and not re-inflating the conversational exchange with viable suggestion(s).

Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 16 hours ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
I like the framework laid out

I like the framework laid out by Tannim222 and the suggestions made by Huckleberry

WarBird
WarBird's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/17/2013 - 19:11
An excellent observation. I

An excellent observation. I guess I was thinking more of an either/or situation, but I wasn't clear. I agree that it would probably be best just to have the 'pick me' icon, though. rather than the 'spoken for.'

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 hour ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I think if there are gating

I think if there are gating restrictions on any of the content (minimum level to do a TFs, raid, etc plus possible alignment restrictions like "heroes only" etc) you ought to be able to form a proto-group that's looking for more on the LFG menu and flag it as "people who are allowed to do ____content only" whatever that means. So like, even if you're just standing around in front of Manticore in Brix, you can form a team with your two friends, then advertise in the LFG menu as "team of 3 LF more for Manti TF" and then set up the "accept/reject" parameters in your team LFG entry with "only accept toons that are ManticoreTF-eligible" as a requirement, thus auto-rejecting any and all toons who don't meet the level and/or alignment gating that the TF has inherently, but allowing eligible toons to jump in at will with no invite from the leader needed. Also, people looking for groups to join should be able to show/hide LFG groups that they aren't actually able to join. If I'm on my level 5 that I just made, I want to be able to hop onto my level 50 to do a TF if one's forming.

Edit: the entry for the group that's forming ought to show you the current number of people, the theoretical max size, and the minimum needed to start the TF or whatever it is. Also, I personjally would like to be able to either right-click or mouse-over the LFG entry to see what classes/specs they have now, including primary and secondary power sets, possibly in symbol form such that when you mouse over the symbol it gives you reminder text of what the symbol means. Possibly with the names of the toons listed, at least for smaller groups.

Another idea that had come up in the past was the possibility of allowing only subscribers to form their own private raid groups of a given size and forcing all the non-subs to have to jump in a queue if they want to do the thing. Presumably the subscribers could invite non-subs to their teams, but the non-subs could not themselves form a private team and lead it as such. In GW2 the privileged of being able to form a 50-person squad is I believe reserved for people who have purchased (with gold or gems) a "Commander Tag" which in addition to getting you that right, also allows you to thumbtack yourself on the map so that everyone on that instance of that map can see you as the blue tag that's moving around, etc. A lesser version of this is free, called a mentor tag, which allows teams of 10 and is always red with a white cross in it (commonly referred to as an "apple" because that's what it looks like up close, the proverbial apple on the teacher's desk).

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
Dark Ether wrote:
Dark Ether wrote:

It's too easy for a self-invite system to attract trolls who will join and then bail when you need a full team.

I dunno, I like the option to "right click - request to join team" option that Wildstar has.

It makes it a lot easier to get a group of people all together. There, there is the option to set it up as "open", "approval needed" and "closed". It helps cut it all down, and its the choice of the team leader as to who they let in, if they let people in etc etc.

So for when I was doing raids in Wildstar, the raid leader would get one person into the raid (to form a group), and then open it up for everyone to join. And then we would right click and join him. Much faster than him having to send out the invites (one at a time).

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 2 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

I dunno, I like the option to "right click - request to join team" option that Wildstar has.
It makes it a lot easier to get a group of people all together. There, there is the option to set it up as "open", "approval needed" and "closed". It helps cut it all down, and its the choice of the team leader as to who they let in, if they let people in etc etc.
So for when I was doing raids in Wildstar, the raid leader would get one person into the raid (to form a group), and then open it up for everyone to join. And then we would right click and join him. Much faster than him having to send out the invites (one at a time).

Very true. That is handy, especially when world bosses show up and crowds form.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Dark Ether
Dark Ether's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 7 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:26
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

Dark Ether wrote:
It's too easy for a self-invite system to attract trolls who will join and then bail when you need a full team.
I dunno, I like the option to "right click - request to join team" option that Wildstar has.
It makes it a lot easier to get a group of people all together. There, there is the option to set it up as "open", "approval needed" and "closed". It helps cut it all down, and its the choice of the team leader as to who they let in, if they let people in etc etc.
So for when I was doing raids in Wildstar, the raid leader would get one person into the raid (to form a group), and then open it up for everyone to join. And then we would right click and join him. Much faster than him having to send out the invites (one at a time).

You are inferring something I did not say.

What you are describing is a request sent to a team asking to join them. They either allow it or don't.

What I was arguing against was the capability to add oneself to an existing team. Different thing.

(insert pithy comment here)

Halae
Halae's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 58 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/17/2014 - 09:37
Dark Ether wrote:
Dark Ether wrote:

What I was arguing against was the capability to add oneself to an existing team. Different thing.

Lemme tell ya, I've had the chance to experience that before. It's not fun, because it is by far the easiest way for griefers to screw people up in games that allow it.

An infinite number of tries doesn't mean that any one of those tries will succeed. I could flip an infinite number of pennies an infinite number of times and, barring genuine randomness, they will never come up "Waffles".

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 hour ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I have joined many a squad in

I have joined many a squad in GW2 since August 2016 and I have yet to see or hear any griefing. In most cases the map chat channel tends to be raunchier than the squad I'm on. Some of them are run by my SG, some are just PUG squads doing content I wanted to do. In any event, I'm all for letting people keep their teams private to avoid that, if they want. I just think that also allowing, as an option, fully-public LFG teams that one can join without invite has been demonstrated to be viable in GW2 without causing the downfall of western civilization as we know it.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 55 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Any form of griefing depends

Any form of griefing depends on the community. GW2 suffers less from self-promoting jerks because teams are small and the community is relatively polite. Also, it's very easy to solo and to 'join' ad-hoc groups for tough content, without going through the process of actually searching for a team and getting accepted.

Be Well!
Fireheart