Guild Wars 2

Parties usually post for p1/3 or p1/2, etc. anyway. I think it’s fine with the story and paths being under the same tab. Not many people do story mode, but if you see it posted, at least you’ll think about doing it on a character you need. Plus, personally all those extra tabs will be annoying to filter through.

assuming people read the description

Wicked Rin.1972:

Parties usually post for p1/3 or p1/2, etc. anyway. I think it’s fine with the story and paths being under the same tab. Not many people do story mode, but if you see it posted, at least you’ll think about doing it on a character you need. Plus, personally all those extra tabs will be annoying to filter through.

Often what happens with me is that I’ll post for say P2, get people join and enter, then quit once the path is selected. People will also join a group that says P1+2 and leave after the first one. Just breaking them up would help with this… but you’re right it would be more tabs to flip through if you just wanted any path what so ever for that dungeon. Not sure how to solve the problem without adding in extra tabs though.

Wukunlin.8461:

assuming people read the description

This is the cause of every problem with the current LFG system it seems hahahaha. There are legit reasons why one might not be able to read the descriptions though… like parties filling up too fast.

Wukunlin.8461:

assuming people read the description

That’s how I ended up doing CoF p3… Being so used to seeing only CoF p1/p2 made me not care about paying attention as long as I didn’t see “story”. But the people in the party were so happy to have someone else that I stayed xD.

Sounds to me like this is the fault of the community itself, not the tool. A community of… intellectually challenged… people makes for a bad LFG environment to begin with.

Arimahn.3568:

Sounds to me like this is the fault of the community itself, not the tool. A community of… intellectually challenged… people makes for a bad LFG environment to begin with.

You made me giggle

Bright.9160:

Ahlen.7591:

Unless you’re doing 26+ Fractals I can’t really imagine the need to min/max so much though. And if you’re doing fractals that high, do you REALLY want to pug anyway?

Lol, Fractals THAT high…

As for min/maxing, it’s more about the player, the gear he’s wearing is usually just a good indicator…

I don’t see the point in doing fractals higher than 26 tbh. The risk/reward doesnt’ get better, it gets worse.

Ahlen.7591:

Bright.9160:

Ahlen.7591:

Unless you’re doing 26+ Fractals I can’t really imagine the need to min/max so much though. And if you’re doing fractals that high, do you REALLY want to pug anyway?

Lol, Fractals THAT high…

As for min/maxing, it’s more about the player, the gear he’s wearing is usually just a good indicator…

I don’t see the point in doing fractals higher than 26 tbh. The risk/reward doesnt’ get better, it gets worse.

You get more relics, and a higher chance for a Fractal weapon. Not to mention, lvl48 isn’t that hard anyway, it just requires you to have half a brain, and you might wipe a couple of times.

Arimahn.3568:

Sounds to me like this is the fault of the community itself, not the tool. A community of… intellectually challenged… people makes for a bad LFG environment to begin with.

It’s both. The players that just don’t care and don’t read it’s their fault, however if it’s the last spot for CoFP1… you have about 5 milliseconds to click on it before that last spot gets taken. It would be very easy to mistake a description of CoFP2 for CoFP1 when trying to get in a party.

AntiGw.9367:

Bright.9160:

AntiGw.9367:

Bright.9160:

Just the ability to accept/reject people from your party would already be a huge leap forward. I don’t get why that didn’t get implemented to start with.

A dev and a QA explained very clearly in their video why that didn’t get implemented, and their reasoning was very solid.

Link/explanation? Because I’m trying my best to come up with a reasoning behind such a ret*rded feature, but I’m failing horribly.

I know how they all want everyone to get along and sing songs and fart rainbows, but that’s just not reality. The reality is that some people don’t want to play with some other people, and by not having this feature available, they are making it impossible for those some people to filter out those other people (and this goes both ways), causing great frustrations everywhere.

Link/explanation

It doesn’t cause great frustrations anywhere. Several, exactly the same, people posting in the Dungeons subforum to complain about “scrubs” and “rabble” all the time is not “everywhere”.

Sorry that I haven’t responded to this yet, as I didn’t really have time to watch the video.

As for their ‘solid reasoning’, I personally don’t think that “because we want you guys to group faster” is a ‘solid’ excuse for such a design flaw.

I have to say though that I didn’t know that someone that continually joins/gets kick will be limited to join your party again, which is a good counter feature, so I guess I’m sort of neutral on the subject because of that, although I’d prefer the accept/reject feature.

… but I found out why they really did it that way. Around 34:56 he says “I expect a lot of you to pull me, carry me through these dungeons, because I’m just not very good at this game.” I guess that’s why they continually cater to scrubs. GW2, a game by scrubs, for scrubs.

Bright.9160:

As for their ‘solid reasoning’, I personally don’t think that “because we want you guys to group faster” is a ‘solid’ excuse for such a design flaw.

The idea is that you have to compromise and be more tolerant if you use the tool. It’s not a design flaw, it’s a design goal. The design itself is bullet-proof, since it does reach that goal perfectly.

AntiGw.9367:

Bright.9160:

As for their ‘solid reasoning’, I personally don’t think that “because we want you guys to group faster” is a ‘solid’ excuse for such a design flaw.

The idea is that you have to compromise and be more tolerant if you use the tool. It’s not a design flaw, it’s a design goal. The design itself is bullet-proof, since it does reach that goal perfectly.

Just because it’s a goal, doesn’t mean that goal can’t be flawed.

I’m not gonna Godwin this thread, but there are plenty of examples of clear goals that were really flawed.