Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 279
  1. #201
    Community Member Beethoven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    formerly Austria, now US
    Posts
    890

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrkGrismer View Post
    A valid point, but do note that all the things you mention there are ddo store items...
    Most things. I also mentioned "actual" spells (as in UMD and scrolls or casting it as caster). The irony is not lost to me though. We have numerous complaints about the evil capitalists at Turbine which make some features unavaible except through the store. Now they talk about a system which could be used to circumvent the requirement of several store bought items and it is also called out as bad.

    Also, keep in mind before we had airship navigators and a ddo store it was almost a standard for a caster to park in the sub and offer Greater Teleports. Similar situation existed: I needed to get to Meridia, I could have simply joined a Shroud, asked for a GT and then dropped group again.

    It's not a perfect system but of all its weaknesses I consider that it could be used as cheap teleports the least of an issue, if an issue at all. I'd even consider the fact pikers no longer need to run to a quest to pike it worse (and no, I don't think of this as major concern either since if someone wants to pike they can pike using the current lfm system almost as easily - minus the five minutes it takes to get inside the quest entrance).


    Quote Originally Posted by Cyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phax View Post
    - You can pre-select class makeup and level range in the Create Party panel BEFORE entering the quest, and your new public LFM will inherit those settings.
    That sounds like a lot of work for these new players who are too lazy to use the normal LFM screen honestly.
    It's not supposed to address lazy, it's supposed to address the issue were a new player is to shy to create a standard lfm. Currently they can only hope a group is up for what they want to run; if not they are sol. The system is designed to give them an alternative by allowing them to create a group without necessarily assuming leadership.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phax View Post
    - When party leadership changes, the LFM will automatically be transfered to the new leader.
    Who if a clueless newbie which this system apparently is all about catering to would have no clue they had inherited it in all likelyhood.
    Exactly; since people will generally assume the public instances are full of clueless newbies, actual newbies might feel more comfortable joining those groups whereas they wouldn't join a standard lfm out of fear being ridiculed or chastised for being new. It may or may not work out as well as Turbine obviously hopes, however as system designed with the goal to get new players group more often with other new players and feel more comfortable grouping amongst each other I don't think it's bad.
    Characters on Sarlona: Ungnad (Morninglord, Wizard 17 / Favored Soul 2 / Fighter 1) -- Baerktghar (Dwarf, Paladin 18 / Fighter 2) -- Simulacruhm (Bladeforged, Artificer 16 / Paladin 3 / Wizard 1)

    No matter what side of the argument you are on, you always find people on your side that you wish were on the other.
    -- Jascha Heifetz

  2. #202
    Community Member Cyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    7,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beethoven View Post
    It's not supposed to address lazy, it's supposed to address the issue were a new player is to shy to create a standard lfm. Currently they can only hope a group is up for what they want to run; if not they are sol. The system is designed to give them an alternative by allowing them to create a group without necessarily assuming leadership.



    Exactly; since people will generally assume the public instances are full of clueless newbies, actual newbies might feel more comfortable joining those groups whereas they wouldn't join a standard lfm out of fear being ridiculed or chastised for being new. It may or may not work out as well as Turbine obviously hopes, however as system designed with the goal to get new players group more often with other new players and feel more comfortable grouping amongst each other I don't think it's bad.
    Sorry, but the current LFM system addresses these needs already.

    Put up LFM. Put in notes, new/RP/flower sniffer/going slow/not leading...and viola you have the same dang thing this is supposed to address without any ripple effects.

    The same person who joined an lfm with one of those tags and ripped on someone for their gear would be the same one who joined a public one and did the same thing. Except in the standard LFM system the guy who got ripped on can put up their LFM for another quest and decline the guy who ripped on them last quest instead of ending up with them in their party again.
    Proud Recipient of At least 8 Negative Rep From NA Threads.
    Main: Sharess
    Alts: Avaril/Cyr/Cyrillia/Garagos/Inim/Lamasa/Ravella

  3. #203
    Community Member Talon_Moonshadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seminole, FL
    Posts
    10,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phax View Post
    Here are some followups:

    - The time that the adventure has been active will be right on the LFM posting.

    - I agree it will be necessary to do something about pikers.

    - There will be an option to hide these new public LFMs. This setting will be saved.

    - You can pre-select class makeup and level range in the Create Party panel BEFORE entering the quest, and your new public LFM will inherit those settings.

    - When party leadership changes, the LFM will automatically be transfered to the new leader.

    - There is a new information alert for the leader of a public LFM that explains the feature and will bring up the Create Party panel when clicked (to help players who are unfamiliar with the system).

    - The portal UI will remember your selections, so if you only ever want a private instance, you'll only have to select it once and never think about it again.

    - I'd like to add an option for "Auto-post LFM even when private", so you can have the LFM automatically posted with the correct quest/difficulty, and retain all the existing invitation request/management functionality.

    - Quests will most likely not be auto-shared, but players will get a warning if they are not on the correct chapter/goal.

    - The only thing the leader will not be able to change in the Create Party panel is the quest and difficulty level, as those are tied to the in-progess adventure.

    - If you do not own the content, you will not be allowed to join the group.
    I'm just concerned about people who are over a certain level being allowed to auto-join and come in a ruin other people's XP.

    for instance, if I go do Chronoscope at level, I guarantee some lvl 20 will want to join my group.

    How do I prevent this?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jandric View Post
    ..., but I honestly think the solution is to group with less whiny people.

  4. #204
    The Hatchery NytCrawlr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    1,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samir_Bennal View Post
    Can you make so the show groups not eligible for is not automatically checked when logging on? When I pull up the LFM screen I am looking for groups that I can join not ones I can't. If I want to look at the ones I can't then I will check that box. It should not be checked by default.
    Agreed wholeheartedly. This is a pet peeve of mine as well.

  5. #205
    Community Member amethystdragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis, for now.
    Posts
    371

    Default

    I see a lot of concerns about it being called an "In Progress" group. To the average player this means that the person who started it, is going to complete the quest even if no one joins them. Which these are fine, you may be opening the quest up to other so that you have someone to talk to, allow someone else the favor, completion, flagging, or what have you. All are great reason to run an "IP" quest.

    Newer players, and some absent minded vets, do not like to join "IP" quests, because they are afraid that they will get lost in the quest or mess something up and tick someone off, or get with or cause XP loss. Which are valid reason for someone not to join an "IP" quest.

    I think the players are targeting with this new system, are those that would probably not want to join an "IP" quest.

    So instead of making all public groups "IP" groups, allow two types of public groups. Group 1 are "IP" groups, where the person that started it is going to finish even if no one joins them; while Group 2 would be labeled something like "Waiting at Entrance to fill", which would indicate that the person who started the group is wanting to wait for a full group before they even move one step. If something like this put in place, then allow to switch from a "Waiting" group to an "IP" group.
    Your complaint has been lodged, duly noted, and swiftly rejected.

    Sometimes you just have to laugh, because everything else is illegal.

  6. #206
    Community Member Talon_Moonshadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seminole, FL
    Posts
    10,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amethystdragon View Post
    I see a lot of concerns about it being called an "In Progress" group. To the average player this means that the person who started it, is going to complete the quest even if no one joins them. Which these are fine, you may be opening the quest up to other so that you have someone to talk to, allow someone else the favor, completion, flagging, or what have you. All are great reason to run an "IP" quest.

    Newer players, and some absent minded vets, do not like to join "IP" quests, because they are afraid that they will get lost in the quest or mess something up and tick someone off, or get with or cause XP loss. Which are valid reason for someone not to join an "IP" quest.

    I think the players are targeting with this new system, are those that would probably not want to join an "IP" quest.

    So instead of making all public groups "IP" groups, allow two types of public groups. Group 1 are "IP" groups, where the person that started it is going to finish even if no one joins them; while Group 2 would be labeled something like "Waiting at Entrance to fill", which would indicate that the person who started the group is wanting to wait for a full group before they even move one step. If something like this put in place, then allow to switch from a "Waiting" group to an "IP" group.
    I don't ike joining "IP" quests, because I want to actually "do" the quest, from start to finish, and not just try to catch up and get the end chest.

    for many older quests, I don't mind to much, since I have done the quests 1000+ times, but even then, just zoning in and never getting to kill a monster before the quest is completed is not fun.


    (just imagine Rainbow in the Dark!)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jandric View Post
    ..., but I honestly think the solution is to group with less whiny people.

  7. #207
    The Hatchery Kilnedric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galeria View Post
    I like the theory.

    Someone at DDO Central has been running focus groups with new players, looking for ways to hook/retain more people in the game. This is an excellent goal.

    The focus group has said/checked a box that it is too difficult to find a group for the content they want to run.

    The focus group has said/checked a box that they do not want to start a group for content they don't know because they don't know it.

    These are very real barriers to getting into the game. People who say "put up your own lfm" are oblivious to the fact that it is uncomfortable to start a group for something that you have no clue about, including where it is. "Read the wiki" is also poor advice for new players who are already inundated with choices and options and steamrolled by veteran players. The wiki is awesome but assumes you know the terminology already- a lot of which takes time to really understand what it means.

    So, based on these results, we get the autogroup feature. I believe the concept behind it is that people on Korthos, instead of typing "Who wants to run Heyton's on elite with me?" in general chat can simply go to the quest, start it, and automatically leave it open for others to join. On Korthos, ideal party makeup is not that big of a concern.

    The desired result is that newbs will end up getting into groups with each other, chat a little, learn the quests together and grow to love the game. Maybe even start their own guilds with their new buddies. Zergers and vets are unlikely to use the system regularly, leaving it as sort of an auto-newb channel where people can learn the game at their own pace.

    The undesired result will be people using the system for zerg runs but picking up newbs and everyone gets upset, newbs who exit and reenter the quest because they were confused, and pikers griefing the sincere players who then have to deal with dungeon scaling.

    It's an imperfect solution to a real problem with getting started in the game, but it's an effort. They are apparently expecting a lot of new players to join for the Forgotten Realms content and I hope they get them.

    It is (IMO) about time there was some focus on new player retention and this following the Korthos objective revamp is a good start.

    My plea to the devs reading this: fix the pre-selected paths. Players who don't "get" the whole character building selection system (and that includes tabletop DnDers) need to have a solid character with training wheels, not be gimped by builds that do not reflect the current game.
    I completely agree.

    This is a great post. This is the answer to "what is this change addressing?"
    Ghallanda
    Thairos - ETRing Artificer * Khryll - 28 Clonk * Jarkxle - 28 Swashbuckler * Jaherian - 25 Druid

  8. #208
    Community Member Chai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, birthplace of D&D
    Posts
    20,923

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyr View Post
    Sorry, but the current LFM system addresses these needs already.

    Put up LFM. Put in notes, new/RP/flower sniffer/going slow/not leading...and viola you have the same dang thing this is supposed to address without any ripple effects.

    The same person who joined an lfm with one of those tags and ripped on someone for their gear would be the same one who joined a public one and did the same thing. Except in the standard LFM system the guy who got ripped on can put up their LFM for another quest and decline the guy who ripped on them last quest instead of ending up with them in their party again.
    Its an optional system. People like me who dont want to use it dont have to.

    And squelch makes it so that person cant join again - already been pointed out in this thread.
    Advocating repeated nerfs in the name of "balancing the game" then complaining about how DDO is moving away from D&D, is a direct contradiction in logic - D&D 3.5 (what DDO is based on) is not a balanced game. We can either have a balanced clone MMO with homogenized classes, or we can have a D&D game. We cant have both.

  9. #209
    Developer MadFloyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrande View Post
    Dear MadFloyd,

    I would suggest:

    • putting the people for auto grouping be at least speaking the same language (Communication)
    • have the members with the same pings for not one member lagging the rest of the party.
    • desired party composition: role filled out.
    • very basic requirement: +6 CON item, Greater False Life, Heavy Fortification, and non-brain dead, non drunks.
    • ability to vote someone out.
    • pug is like a box of chocolates, you'll never know what you are going to get... I sometimes pretend that I do not know the quest and follow along and RP and laughing when someone made a big mistake in a fun way. Sometimes it was fun saving the party... or being rescued. Make this an option: [ ]Do you like surprises?
    Thank you for the suggestions.
    The kobold cannot be marked as junk because it cannot be sold. You can destroy it by dragging and dropping it outside your inventory.

  10. #210
    Community Member Aeolwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    On the outside, looking in
    Posts
    902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrande View Post
    Dear MadFloyd,

    I would suggest:

    • putting the people for auto grouping be at least speaking the same language (Communication)
    • have the members with the same pings for not one member lagging the rest of the party.
    • desired party composition: role filled out.
    • very basic requirement: +6 CON item, Greater False Life, Heavy Fortification, and non-brain dead, non drunks.
    • ability to vote someone out.
    • pug is like a box of chocolates, you'll never know what you are going to get... I sometimes pretend that I do not know the quest and follow along and RP and laughing when someone made a big mistake in a fun way. Sometimes it was fun saving the party... or being rescued. Make this an option: [ ]Do you like surprises?
    lol, we'd all be solo in the queue if these were hard criteria!
    Aeolwind (5/12) - 18 Sorc/1 Art | Melisandria - 20 Fighter SD | Anlona - 20 cleric RS

  11. #211
    Community Member Cyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    7,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chai View Post
    Its an optional system. People like me who dont want to use it dont have to.

    And squelch makes it so that person cant join again - already been pointed out in this thread.
    You really think that squelch will save people from bad experiences? Lots of times this becomes a do not let in person from guild X. That is not something squelch really works for.

    It only gets rid of one toon at a time and has a limited number of people that can be squelched. Heck, I had to remove a bunch of plat farmer ones I had squelched to add others myself recently and that was with my rule of only squelching people who are somehow really annoying over voice (ie they are loud, play music, never stop talking). Amusingly I have no issues grouping with some of those people as long as I have them squelched though so I do not have to listen to them.

    Also, dev quote me on squelch actually not allowing people to join public instances with you. I have yet to see a relevant dev quote about the subject besides that squelched people can see each others public LFMs.
    Proud Recipient of At least 8 Negative Rep From NA Threads.
    Main: Sharess
    Alts: Avaril/Cyr/Cyrillia/Garagos/Inim/Lamasa/Ravella

  12. #212
    Founder Nyvn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,819

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chai View Post
    And squelch makes it so that person cant join again - already been pointed out in this thread.

    Can you quote that?

  13. #213
    Community Member Chai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, birthplace of D&D
    Posts
    20,923

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyr View Post
    You really think that squelch will save people from bad experiences? Lots of times this becomes a do not let in person from guild X. That is not something squelch really works for.
    Blacklisting someones entire guild for one bad experience is the fault of the user, not Turbine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyr View Post
    It only gets rid of one toon at a time and has a limited number of people that can be squelched. Heck, I had to remove a bunch of plat farmer ones I had squelched to add others myself recently and that was with my rule of only squelching people who are somehow really annoying over voice (ie they are loud, play music, never stop talking). Amusingly I have no issues grouping with some of those people as long as I have them squelched though so I do not have to listen to them.
    So you are using squelch for something its not designed for, and this is the companies fault? You will already in the current system have the issue of being able to keep track of people you dont want to group with -vs- people who have annoying voices. This doesnt change in the new system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyr View Post
    Also, dev quote me on squelch actually not allowing people to join public instances with you. I have yet to see a relevant dev quote about the subject besides that squelched people can see each others public LFMs.
    If I have an LFM up for levels 12-15, how many toons do they have in that level range? Is this griefer actually keeping toons in that level range to grief? I doubt it. Sooner or later their actions will fall outside of the ToC. None of that stuff can really be stopped with the current system anyhow unless you memorize all of their toons, and unless you have a photographic memory, how would you do that? Squelch perhaps? What do you know, thats the same mechanic you will use to prevent it in the new system.
    Advocating repeated nerfs in the name of "balancing the game" then complaining about how DDO is moving away from D&D, is a direct contradiction in logic - D&D 3.5 (what DDO is based on) is not a balanced game. We can either have a balanced clone MMO with homogenized classes, or we can have a D&D game. We cant have both.

  14. #214
    Community Member Ungood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,154

    Default

    I am still enjoying reading how the people it is not designed to help or address are venting their problems with it.

    I personally think it is a great idea that will do exactly what the developers intended it to do.

    It would mainly focus on content that was around 1 - 14th level, I would wager mainly normal and hard runs, I doubt many elite streak TR2+ would use this feature, while I am sure some would for the entertainment value.

    This would have zero effect on high end content, nor would people who want to be picky and exclusive use it.

    As MadFloyd said, it's really not designed for the majority of the forum goers.

    I still don't see the teleport issue, it is one zone (a Djinn Teleport) from Merdia to a Guild Ship access point, and 1 Zone from Sands to a Guild ship access point, in fact, the longest I have seen to have to from a zone to a guild access port is from Orchard to a Guild Portal which is one full zone (2 zone points) and I suppose if people were that impatient it might be worth it to them. but then again, you need to cater to people that are in fact, that impatient.

    Mainly the use is getting to the quest that is the issue, and even then this caters only to the players that like to pug a lot, or don't mind doing the work for other people.

    The only real abuse I can see is when the new or casual players wake up to what an expendable resource vets can be, and realize that they can play off a Power Gamers impatience and wanting the teleport to quest feature, then they make the run to a distant quest, put up an LFM for elite knowing some TR2+ will show up and zerg it stupid for them, allowing them to pike at the zone and get free EXP.

    But that is only if Vets are willing to be played like that. Or such is the only abuse I can see with this system.

  15. #215
    Community Member Cyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    7,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chai View Post
    Blacklisting someones entire guild for one bad experience is the fault of the user, not Turbine.



    So you are using squelch for something its not designed for, and this is the companies fault? You will already in the current system have the issue of being able to keep track of people you dont want to group with -vs- people who have annoying voices. This doesnt change in the new system.



    If I have an LFM up for levels 12-15, how many toons do they have in that level range? Is this griefer actually keeping toons in that level range to grief? I doubt it. Sooner or later their actions will fall outside of the ToC. None of that stuff can really be stopped with the current system anyhow unless you memorize all of their toons, and unless you have a photographic memory, how would you do that? Squelch perhaps? What do you know, thats the same mechanic you will use to prevent it in the new system.

    lol, of course squelch is designed to stop you from hearing someone over voice chat. That is one of the features of it, but it is an aside.

    Black listing an entire guild for a day lets say is one of the more reliable ways of not having a griefer come back to haunt you on alts or have their friends haunt you.

    I never had much issues with griefers only one or two through the years, but some people I played with had much worse issues then me. Women in particular seem to be the targets of kind of creepy players to be honest although younger players I also saw having issues also.

    Unguilded toons and guilded with the griefer are easy to avoid and that generally makes it easy to avoid griefers while still playing the game after the first occurance.

    The entire point here is that this new option does not provide those sorts of options. Sure someone could just plain not use the public system and use private LFMs, but if that was really such a bad thing to begin with (which I dispute entirely) then why is having that as their only recourse a good thing?

    This is all to point out that if the system is more open to issues then the standard system and those most likely to be victim to these issues in normal LFMs are the ones supposedly being helped by this system then there seems to be a disconnect between what will actually help them and what will not.

    Let's list the type that this system is targetted towards from Turbine's perspective: Socially awkward, shy, insecure about their gaming/toon. That would be the same type that is more likely to be griefed (and get stressed out about it).

    The last thing I want is another system added to the game to help new players and those who are hesitant to group that makes things worse for them. In this case it gives griefers more power and makes the odds of them landing in a group with drastically different play styles and more people who are clueless about the game making grouping more cumbersome for them not less.

    The combination of lack of control and incentive for zergers as well as dungeon crawlers to use this system does not strike me as a good method of helping. Of course having this as an entirely IP thing also drastically detracts from the new player friendly thing also.
    Last edited by Cyr; 04-11-2012 at 01:23 PM.
    Proud Recipient of At least 8 Negative Rep From NA Threads.
    Main: Sharess
    Alts: Avaril/Cyr/Cyrillia/Garagos/Inim/Lamasa/Ravella

  16. #216
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Talon_Moonshadow View Post
    I do think that "IP" LFMs are "not" new guy friendly though.
    so while this system wil attract new players (at first) it will also hurt them, because they cannot get to the quest, and cannot catch up once they get inside it.

    and if the people already inside did not kill everything... or disable traps etc...
    Then you have bad feelings, even if griefing was not intended.
    I did suggest popping up a reverse-DD inside at the dungeon entrance (maybe at the 10 minutes at which late entry begins, and only usable once per character, or whatever other restrictions are needed to prohibit fantastic exploits). That would eliminate long solo runs through either populated or unpopulated dungeons to catch up, and as an additional side-effect help out adding someone to the fight immediately if dungeon scaling can't be delayed a bit when people enter.

    If the time elapsed is being shown in the LFM, and that is created before and without requiring the dungeon to be entered, then it would be easy to have a "Waiting To Enter" shown there as well. With that information, people could choose how IP they want their quests to be before joining and even ask exactly how far along they are And assuming that parties aren't automatically disbanded on leaving, everyone could agree to run it all together from the start again, especially if someone wants/needs to learn the beginning they missed out on.

    Hmm, now if leaving the dungeon returns you to your initial public location you teleported from, then everyone would have to find each other again on quest completion for the next quest should the party decide to stay together, unless the teleporting into the dungeon is also done when the party first enters and not just when someone joins an IP party. At least if the party is already all together and not in a dungeon, having just completed one, giving directions isn't too onerous and asking for them shouldn't be an auto-kick.

  17. #217
    Community Member Ungood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyr View Post
    Let's list the type that this system is targetted towards from Turbine's perspective: Socially awkward, shy, insecure about their gaming/toon. That would be the same type that is more likely to be griefed (and get stressed out about it).

    The last thing I want is another system added to the game to help new players and those who are hesitant to group that makes things worse for them. In this case it gives griefers more power and makes the odds of them landing in a group with drastically different play styles and more people who are clueless about the game making grouping more cumbersome for them not less.

    The combination of lack of control and incentive for zergers as well as dungeon crawlers to use this system does not strike me as a good method of helping. Of course having this as an entirely IP thing also drastically detracts from the new player friendly thing also.
    I think you are playing the griefer card a little too much with this.

    This system will for the most part be a great asset for low to mid level players as they progress though the levels, as a vast number of those "socially awkward" players meet solid and good players, and then they join larger social groups and guilds, not to mention, you have no idea who's alt or main you might meet up in those auto-groups, so jumping into groups with the intent to grief might not be anyone's best move.

    Just like how currently we are allowed to police ourselves to an extent by squelch, and black listing, etc, people who treat auto-group as a means to grief with impunity will find their end-game life very, very, lonely.

    Especially when you consider that 20th is going to become "The start" of epic levels and the beginning of "end-game"

    So again, I don't see the main issue here.

  18. #218
    Community Member One_Nasty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    22

    Default

    There have been several posts that talk about what players think this is addressing and even one by a Dev saying new players have an issue that this is supposed to address, the problem, at least IMHO, is this comes nowhere close to fixing the problems that I as a fairly casual player have. Nor does it resolve the problems people I have run with and attempted to get into the game. Which is virtually the same thing. It's too hard to get into a group that accomplishes anything.
    It's like hoping on a bus at the bus stop, usually the bus is a local and stops every block on its route. Sometime you get lucky and catch a ride on the express bus but that doesn't happen very often.

    What is the root cause of the problem?
    The quests are too darn short.
    That core problem is not going to resolved by Public Instances, there is even a possibility it will be exacerbated by the solution.
    Look at the General Chat and LFM’s up on Korthos, at least on Khyber, “Who want’s to run Heyton’s Rest with me.” there are no LFM’s, heck I think I played like two months before I knew how to get the LFM panel up. I have even posted LFM’s up whenever I am down there and usually no one clicks.
    When you get to the quests they last ten minutes top, there are a few exceptions of course and there usually are enough LFMs up for those quests if not there will be in a few minutes.
    Currently new players when they decide to form a party or join a party run one quest then someone leaves and another LFM goes up and …. The same issue is going to happen here, except as I understand it the LFM is going to go up automatically (actually rereading makes me wonder about that part).

    And please let’s not get started on Quest Chains, I mean the poor players that join on quest 2 or later are just going to be out of luck.

    So from my perspective unless changes are made to the current quest design this new system does what?

    From my perspective Turbine is building new faster buses, at least faster than the old buses, but the buses are still on the same route as the old buses and at the lower levels the buses stop every block along the way letting characters on and off. So is the bus faster for the new players, the group that Turbine wants to help?
    However the vets and older players know the new buses are faster and can used that to make their characters faster in moving about.

  19. #219
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,059

    Default

    A couple of additional suggestions (these may have been covered already, I haven't read all pages):

    1. To be more user-friendly for new players, give the auto-lfm some reasonable defaults for levels. The current player +/- 2 just begs for xp problems. If the player 2 levels above the quest level or less, have the defult range from quest level +2, down to quest level minus 1. If the original player is at a higher level, then at least cap the level range at 3 levels, not 4. The players would of course be free to change these, but at least we'd be starting with non-xp-gimped default levels.

    2. I would definitely resist adding more filters other than class and level. It defeats the purpose, which is making new people feel more welcome in groups -- not finding additional ways to exclude them. This also goes for so-called "roles". That's the last thing we need, yet another excuse for someone to say "you'll play your hjealer the way I want you to" (because in non-raids, that's essentially what we are talking about when we say "roles".)

    3. Make it QUICK and EASY to fill out. The less stuff to enter, the better.

  20. #220
    The Hatchery Expalphalog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyr View Post
    Let's list the type that this system is targetted towards from Turbine's perspective: Casual players, role players, players who don't know the content but have read the forums enough to know that "need guide" is a red flag for most vets, players who enjoy mentoring/helping, and friendly players.
    Fixed for ya.

    Why do you assume all new players are lazy, clueless, and socially awkward (your words, not mine)?
    Last edited by Expalphalog; 04-11-2012 at 06:26 PM.
    Bronies: For those who get it, no explanation is needed; for those who don't, none will do.

Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload