Breakfast topic: Return of the LFG
by Mike Schramm 
Mar 20th 2007 at 8:31AM
We know by now that the LFG channel is coming back in 2.1.0, but not in the form we expected: the CMs have said that the LFG channel will be integrated with the new LFG tool (in which the two tabs will be somehow combined), and that supposedly only players who are marked LFG will be able to listen in on the LFG channel.Which doesn't quite seem right-- if I'm on my alt and only LFG for my main, marking my alt LFG just to listen to the channel will make more of a mess for players actually LFG to go through. However, in the leaked notes (which it seems weren't leaked at all, or even real) there was a different plan for the LFG channel then we've heard yet-- supposedly all players will be able to listen to the LFG channel, but only players marked LFG will be able to speak in it. That works much better-- I can listen in on the groups forming, but I can't throw up any Chuck Norris jokes unless I actually mark myself LFG. Whether those notes are fake or not, that's a great idea.
There's no question that players aren't happy with the LFG tool as it is now, but it's clear that Blizzard is trying to get it right. So what do you want from the LFG channel? Does the idea for 2.1.0 sound better to you? I already posted my ideas a while back, and it seems we won't know if Blizzard liked them or not until the patch hits. But what are yours?
Filed under: Breakfast Topics, Patches, Blizzard, Instances
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Kirby1612 Mar 20th 2007 8:50AM
I just don't understand why Blizzard can't take suggestions from the people us and not the many devs that play the game. There are always countless topics on the forums (general and suggestion) on how to improve/fix something in the game.
Apparently it works (seeing as people complained about druids) and then again sometimes it fails (Alleged 7k pyros arent nerfed yet).
Blizzard says they make choices based on their own facts and extensive research, but when they implement something, only to have it be a waste of time (Naxx anyone?).
It seems they take advice from the forums and make it seem that they thought of it all on their own.
Felunost Mar 20th 2007 8:55AM
Well the channel sounds like a good idea but I'm guessing we are gunna get "LFG DEADMINES NEED HEALZ AND HIGH LVL" every time we try and use it.
Having the channel in lvl ranges whould be better EG 10 - 20 - 21 -30 etc etc.
Ryan Mar 20th 2007 9:24AM
How about some Armory integration, so we know whether or not that hunter who wants in the group is a total idiot or not.
Flit Mar 20th 2007 9:35AM
What about being able to change which of your toons is in LFG. I could be on my lvl 20, but go into LFG as my level 70. That way, i could look for my alts, which would fix that "but I wanna look for my alts" arguement. Other than that, the new tool looks much friendlier than the current system.
For extreme arguement purposes, Or why not put a lfg client that is separate from wow, so I can lfg without wow running. And what about a mail icon so I know what toons have mail without actually logging into each toon....
Todd Mar 20th 2007 9:30AM
I hope Blizzard realizes that the LFG channel didn't die. People can still create a new channel titled "LFG" and find people still sitting there, talking, and looking for groups. Blizzard would have to forcibly (through code, mind you) prevent the LFG channel from being made on the servers if they truly want people to specifically use their integrated tool.
Todd Mar 20th 2007 9:31AM
...incidentally, if "LFG" doesn't work you can register to the "LookingForGroup" channel which undoubtedly has people in it.
RogueJedi86 Mar 20th 2007 9:31AM
@2/Felunost
The problem with 10-20, 20-30 brackets etc. is that some dungeons are for 38-45 or something like that, so the brackets may exclude them. Heck, just yesterday I saw a 22 Gnome in IF ready to go do Gnomer, which apparently he had done before.
It'd definitely be nice to have an LFG channel though. Make it for all the main cities, same as Trade. It gets annoying seeing /2 turn into a general chat/lfg channel because there's no other chat that allows cross-city communication.
cswhite Mar 20th 2007 10:14AM
People have said this on here before, but I think its really a good idea. They need to make the LFG system opt-out instead of opt-in. People are passive, so most won't take the time to flag themselves LFG. However, they are more likely to actually accept a group if they get offered. People are always sending tells to tanks and healers for a reason...it works.
Kirby1612 Mar 20th 2007 9:44AM
@ Felunost
Having level ranges would be better, but then again this stops people on a lower level alt looking for groups for their higher level character, and vice versa.
Really Blizzard should intergrate the mod Call to Arms. It filters chat text to what you specify, so if you want to see people LFG/LFM/LF1M etc it will only show that, and all other garbage is filtered out and not shown. It's really helpful and I used it before the when the LFG channel was around.
I try and use the LFG option, but not enough people use it enough for it to be working. So it's usually me sitting on a floating garden in Shattrath, with the LFG tool on and watching general and trade chat as people are LFG in there. The whole point was to be able to do what you want while still actively looking for a group, but now its back to the old days of sitting in a capital city looking for people who want to do this instance or quest.
Kragragh @ Undermine Mar 20th 2007 10:37AM
The whole LFG/PUG thing is a huge pain for me. i'm a level 36 rogue, no guild (yet), low pop server...it's pretty rare for me to be able to find a group for ANYTHING. I've run one dungeon so far (RFC) just due to the huge pain and difficulty finding groups.
I don't know why people can't deal with the LFG tool. I don't have any problems with it.
multikast Mar 20th 2007 10:17AM
i made a post about this on the suggestion forums, and only got a few responses.
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=81974869&postId=817983971&sid=1#0
i think the majority of forum-goers clicked and said "TLDR" and moved on.
Bunkai Mar 20th 2007 10:23AM
I use ONLY guild chat to look for a group for anything that I do. I will ONLY join a pug if invited by a guildie that is already part of it, and happens to know at least one other person that is in the group.
That being said, as long as I can "/leave LFG" or not be placed in it at all, it really doesn't matter to me what Blizz does with it.
rustedwings Mar 20th 2007 10:59AM
I still worry about the "Auto Join" option you can flag on and off, while the new system looks like it will function much better than what we have now I live in fear of the people who sit and spam the trade channel getting into that interface and not actually having to party up. That being said, I also think that most times the "Auto Join" option could be replace with a "Wipe" option that functions the exact same way, because in the face of getting thrown into a pug without my consent, the ability to turn that off is really helpful.
The only way that might be fixed is if the interface is large and cumbersome, where you would need to leave it open to read the chat to dissuade people who are farming, bored, and looking to spam from joining. But that in its self wouldn't be great either.
Jim Mar 20th 2007 11:11AM
"I don't know why people can't deal with the LFG tool. I don't have any problems with it."
I'm a 70 Mage. I need to run Hellfire Ramparts to kill the second boss for the last piece of my Illidari mageblade. This is a Level 70 quest. Ramparts doesn't appear in the LFG tool for level 70s, so I can't use it to find a group for Ramparts.
Likewise, I levelled up to 70 before running any instances, and still have a quest in Slave Pens, which also doesn't appear in the LFG tool for me anymore.
And I'd like, just for the sake of completing old quests, to run a 45-minute Strat for the next step in that Dungeon Set 2 quest. Sure, I'll never wear that gear, but that's not the point. In any case, I can't search for a Strat group in LFG anymore.
And this is by no means a complete list. The LFG tool is of limited usefulness. Sure, I was able to get into my first-ever Arcatraz and Underbog groups with it last night -- in that way, it's excellent. But it is incomplete.
(Our PUG ran Arcatraz from top to bottom in under 90 minutes with only one wipe. Not all PUGs suck, Bunkai.)
What it boils down to is that I'd like to be able to search for a group for any activity in the game from any zone in the game, without having to cool my heels in a city. I'd like to be able to grind for Consortium rep in Netherstorm while looking for a Ramparts group. As it stands, that's not possible.
Bunkai Mar 20th 2007 12:00PM
@14
"Our PUG ran Arcatraz from top to bottom in under 90 minutes with only one wipe. Not all PUGs suck, Bunkai."
I do realize that not all PUGs suck. I have, in the past, been in plenty of successful PUGs, but the enjoyment level of the instance is not equal to the level of doing it with guildies that I know and run with on a regular basis. In addition to that, there is a greater chance of failure in a PUG than in a Guild Group because in most cases, the members of the PUG are not familiar with each others' play style, which CAN make a huge difference in the entire run and group dynamics.
They're not all bad, but I choose to not join a PUG in nearly all cases.
Point being, I won't use the LFG tool/channel/mod, so I just hope Blizz gives me the ability to ignore it's existence altogether...whatever they do with it.
To those that use it and look forward to it's improvement, I wish the best for you as well.
Derbeste Mar 20th 2007 12:29PM
"the enjoyment level of the instance is not equal to the level of doing it with guildies that I know and run with on a regular basis." TO YOU.
Some people actually enjoy meeting new people.
Others also enjoy the working with new styles of play.
There are also times when I want more of a challenge. When I run with my guild....we always win. Yes that is a good thing, but there is something to be said for the rush of the unknown.
Last night I had a wonderful PUG in Arcatraz as well. Some of us had never been there and we beat the end boss our first try. I met a GREAT team that went on my friends list for future fun - particularly when my guild isn't available.
There are a lot more people online than those in your guild. I'm glad you are loyal to them, but I think you are also shunning a lot of good people and giving up many potential friends.
felunost Mar 21st 2007 6:57AM
agree with "not all pug partys suck" also agree with RogueJedi86.
so mabye the ranges shuld be based on the instaces your going to so once you pick say DM you are also added to the same channel as WC, this chuld work...
If you chuld pick the lvl ranges you were looking for that whuld solve the lvl 20 looking for 70 instace problem... But I bet after 10 min of siting on the channel you will get "will pay 10 copper for run thogh DM!!!!!!" I had this /w to me before.
Oli Mar 21st 2007 4:44PM
Personally Ithink the LFG Channel should be controlled by the LFG tool, for instance if you need a priest and random for deadmines, select deadmines from the instance list, select 2 from members required box, and then selct priest from one drop down box and random from another.
After you have selected what you need press "Send" and a message such as "LF2M Priest and Random" would come up in the global looking for group channel (Which would be enabled to most people as before)
If anyone knows anyone at blizz please pass this on, as finding a group at the moment is ludicrously hard!
Oli Mar 21st 2007 4:44PM
In response to post 14, i agree completely with you about the cut off point for trying to join a lfg queue for an instance, an instance selection system similar to multimap or atlas would be much better, using location to narrow down your selections rather than level.