Apparently there's a LFG tool coming to GW2!

[Snuckerpooks]

If only I could get the school outfit for normal armor, I came close.

[Thessik-Irontail]

If this data miner can be believed. I'm pretty happy about it.

Also, swimwear and school outfit? Color me happy. Can't wait for them to officially reveal this stuff if it's true.

Too little too late, GW2 is already past its prime. We are all looking towards Wildstar and ESO to be the MMO replacements for WoW that we had hoped GW2 would be, but wasn't.

[grandpab]

Too little too late, GW2 is already past its prime. We are all looking towards Wildstar and ESO to be the MMO replacements for WoW that we had hoped GW2 would be, but wasn't.

On behalf of everyone I thank you for speaking for all of us.

[Thelxi]

Too late Anet, too late.

[Sojou]

It's subjective. I didn't find that using the GW2 LFG site or spamming LFM in map chat resulted in any more communication than any given WoW LFG grouping I've had. Likewise, no one spoke in /p except when things went wrong and we were trying to form a strategy. As far as I know I haven't seen anyone I've done a dungeon with since and if I have I obviously wasn't aware of it.

Personally, I believe it's a myth that group content brings people together socially. The only time I see that happen is when you have very particular personalities grouped together which, at least from my experiences, is rare. Most people I've grouped with are only interested in obtaining gear or achievements and it's usually just an unfortunate circumstance that you need 4 other people to do it. It seems like most of the players who do want to be social in MMOs join guilds to that effect, which in many cases does away with the need of having to PUG in the first place.

I'd actually be really interested to see the percentage of people who would continue to do 5+ man group content if the option existed to obtain and complete everything solo or at the very least in smaller groups of 2-3 people.

Logic has no place when dealing with people that think an automated LFG system is a bad thing.

[rhandric]

Rhandric, I may have some bad news for you...

It's the combination of things, edge

[Smitzelplix]

This sounds cool. I usually only run dungeons with guildies and I rarely run dungeons to begin with so I might not use it all that much, but it will be nice to have either way, the more QoL features added the better.

[Fencers]

Any tool that removes the world from a game that's designed around the world (ie, automation, teleportation) is wrong, for the game.

Not necessarily.

One could design a game in which the world is intended to move players through once. Progressively opening up convenience travel. Examples of this would be; Path of Exile, Guild Wars 1, Baldur's Gate, Super Mario World, Asheron's Call, Diablo 2 or every proper TES game.

[Kiry]

Actually a LFG just like WoW would have brought me back to the game. I have no interest in using a finder like the old days, I have plenty of other things to do with my time. That's just my opinion though.

[Fencers]

Personally, I believe it's a myth that group content brings people together socially.

This is not myth. However, it is a matter of design.

For the technique of forced grouping to work one needs significant consequence for not grouping.

Here's an example of one of the lowest class MMOs: In World of Warcraft there is no object or significant disadvantage to your progression [the goal of the game in total] in going from zone A to B solo. Thus there is no social incentive, and more importantly, personal ramification to being a "lone wolf".

Now in a game like, FF11 or EQ, going form point A to B could often be impossible as a solo player. Or at the least, so detrimental that it was counter to progression. Literal in the case of Everquest as one could lose levels.

That created an environment in which players had to be willing to take the leap of trust and cooperate with one another. By course and nature, those with the furthest progression were those that also put the most effort into their social well being.

If one can progress to equal measure alone or with minimal social grace then the system of forced grouping breaks down.

There might be games in which the design of the game isn't intended as such- again, like World of Warcraft or Diablo 3. Where the play experience is aiming to bring to the player an immediate experience. That is perfectly fine.

The so-called "myth" would only exist under the circumstances in which the design of the game is not expressly trying to invoke that culture of game.

One of the better written examples of this is actually from Chris Wilson of Grinding Gear Games as it relates to the subject of free-for-all party loot. Which was rife with ninja looting and backstabbing-- counter to group incentive? Perhaps.

Though as Chris explained, GGG intended the party looting experience to be intense and stand off-ish. It was their goal by design.

So too can a game (or MMO) be intended to cater to a immediate or socially complex agenda as a point of design.

[Yuuki Asuna]

This would really make me happy :3

[rhandric]

Not necessarily.

One could design a game in which the world is intended to move players through once. Progressively opening up convenience travel. Examples of this would be; Path of Exile, Guild Wars 1, Baldur's Gate, Super Mario World, Asheron's Call, Diablo 2 or every proper TES game.

Sure. My point is that the design and goals of the tool need to match the design/goals of the game as a whole.

[Mormolyce]

Not necessarily.

One could design a game in which the world is intended to move players through once. Progressively opening up convenience travel. Examples of this would be; Path of Exile, Guild Wars 1, Baldur's Gate, Super Mario World, Asheron's Call, Diablo 2 or every proper TES game.

To be fair, 99.9999% of D2 games were sitting in Harrogath waiting for a Sorc bot to open a TP to Baal's room then facerolling him for lewt. People would refuse to even do the couple of levels between the waypoint and Baal's room!

[Fencers]

Sure. My point is that the design and goals of the tool need to match the design/goals of the game as a whole.

I know. I noticed your keen wording as quoted in post #28.

Though I did want to point out that it is possible to create a game which is designed around the game world, not necessarily about repeated travel/exploration of the game world itself. Or at all in the case of some games.

Ex., Super Mario World.

An examples of the inverse would be something like another Miyamoto masterpiece; Ocarnia of Time. Where the game is designed to have the player traverse the world repeatedly. Or say, Symphony of the Night.

[rhandric]

Fair enough, my wording should have been better.

[Fencers]

Fair enough, my wording should have been better.

It's just not an absolute. Could go either way. Depends on how the game is designed or the play experience the devs are aiming for.

Now, I do think you are on the money w/r/t GW2. Although that does open up an interesting dilemma present in Guild Wars 2. And actual concrete, bad game design.

I'll explain.

The game allows players to already teleport within a dungeon/fractal stage so long as they are in the zone on party member entry. Which players can achieve simply by teleporting to any revealed waypoint already. Including the dungeon/fractal waypoint. There is no minimum range on this already included effect.

Revealing the exercise as one designed merely as gold sink.

So why is it that I can get a dungeon port just standing anywhere in a zone? What purpose does it serve aside from the aforementioned gold sink?

If a tax is to be leveraged against the player for this convenience [loosely], then why not simply charge the fee upfront from anywhere? Why force a loading screen to tax the player?

The system is not just foolish. It is as stated; quintessentially faulty design as it doesn't serve the goal(s) of social interaction or inspire exploration/visitation en route.

That is bad design. Or rather, "wrong, for the game."

[Usagi Senshi]

Too late Anet, too late.

Pretty much how I feel, I'm not playing anymore or buying an expansion unless a LFG tool similar to WoW is implemented into the game.

[rhandric]

It's just not an absolute. Could go either way. Depends on how the game is designed or the play experience the devs are aiming for.

Now, I do think you are on the money w/r/t GW2. Although that does open up an interesting dilemma present in Guild Wars 2. And actual concrete, bad game design.

I'll explain.

The game allows players to already teleport within a dungeon/fractal stage so long as they are in the zone on party member entry. Which players can achieve simply by teleporting to any revealed waypoint already. Including the dungeon/fractal waypoint. There is no minimum range on this already included effect.

Revealing the exercise as one designed merely as gold sink.

So why is it that I can get a dungeon port just standing anywhere in a zone? What purpose does it serve aside from the aforementioned gold sink?

If a tax is to be leveraged against the player for this convenience [loosely], then why not simply charge the fee upfront from anywhere? Why force a loading screen to tax the player?

The system is not just foolish. It is as stated; quintessentially faulty design as it doesn't serve the goal(s) of social interaction or inspire exploration/visitation en route.

That is bad design. Or rather, "wrong, for the game."

Well, I think that's an issue of they want you to at least have been to the zone, but don't want to punish you by forcing you to travel to the instance. Which puts it in an awkward space. Ultimately, they need to resolve that dichotomy, and while I can think of a few ways to do so, I'm not sure which is ultimately the best. The interesting thing is that the current solution is ultimately the same as (more or less) the GW1 solution, with the caveat that all zones force-traveled you when anyone zoned, rather than giving you a choice, or being restricted to only dungeons.

[Zarlk]

A real LFG in GW2? Praise be to the Eternal Alchemy!

[Deleted]

Almost a year too late. On the other hand, anything is better than the current looking for group system they use so I'm glad.