Also on AOL
- Autos
- Technology
- Lifestyle
- Gaming
- Finance
- Entertainment on AOL
- Lifestyle on AOL
- Sports on AOL
- Travel on AOL
- More on AOL
Featured Galleries
Joystiq
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-30-2009 @ 4:21PM
aggrazel said...
I like the idea of being able to play an alt while you wait for a spot to open up in the dungeon you are queued for. This seems very reasonable. Spot opens up, it gives you a message, and your alt is poofed into the ether and your main is logged in.
Reply
10-30-2009 @ 7:05PM
Ginncrotz said...
"I like the idea of being able to play an alt while you wait for a spot to open up in the dungeon you are queued for."
Or better yet, let you queue on LFG and leave that active until you logout (or get into a group), even if you swap toons, even if you put another toon into LFG.
So you could level your hunter, and have your pally up for 'roics, and your 'lock waiting for some level 60 instance action... and group forming up tells you all the current stuff (who the other people are, what instance), and reminds you who you queued on. If you reject it, nothing special happens. Make sure the dialog can survive zoning in so you can hearth/ancestral recall/scroll or recall/whatnot to an inn. If you accept the group, if it wasn't queued from the current toon the game switches toons for you. No matter what toon you accepted from all your other queued group requests are canceled (or suspended until you are done with the group).
Well, I guess it would be better UI to let you manage any of your toon's queues from any other toon. More transparent what is happening. It may or may not be simpler to code too. It would definitely be better UI to have an option to hearth, but it would be more painful to cover all the _ways_ to hearth (unless LFG gives you a magic free hearth).
Any way you slice it, that would make LFG "even more better", but it also makes it "even more code!", which would make it "even longer before the next patch". If I were a PM at Blizz (and I'm not, I don't work for Blizz, and I'm not a PM) I would leave that set of features for a future release. I would actually want them there rather then using "future release" as a euphemism for "never" though.