Guild Wars 2

Hi all,

It would be really useful IF:
A party can specify what profession they are looking for and the LFG has a selectable filter preventing individuals on non-matching professions from joining (and specifying a level cap- eg ANY or LVL 80 Only !)

We have all had cases where lvl 50 individuals with 100 AP try to join a group – not understanding (or reading the LFG) to be instantly kicked and not understanding why or people that enter content on the wrong profession (not what the group is looking for) to then be kicked.
The amount of times we have to repost looking for a last slot to fill a particular class can be highly frustrating and annoying.

This would help individuals who have chosen not to read the heartache of moving to a zone to be kicked (and entering a dungeon or fractal) and the feeling of rejection.

Thank you for reading.

Many Thanks

I don’t think you understand GW2 was supposedly built to do away with the kind of discrimination you’re suggesting.

Please post any other LFG improvements you would like to see.
(It’s a simple fact players forming the LFG can have requirements for those looking to join organised group content runs).

Many Thanks

Your idea may sound good on paper but I’m afraid it might cause more stress with casual gamers than the good it will bring. People already feel discriminated enough and while I believe a party should be able to choose what kind of people join I don’t think making something like this official would be good for the game. You can always list what you are looking for, yeah sometimes people won’t read but other than that it works good enough.

Something I would like to see though is something to filter out people who are too low to do the dungeon from joining (like a level 69 trying to do CoF p1 for example). Some people don’t seem to know that a dungeon is higher level than them, or come in expecting to be carried. It’s generally not fun for anyone involved because that person is dead weight due to being two shot all the time. Of course, this system should be optional so if people can still run however they want.

I’m still waiting for non-minority vote-kicking to go away. That’s would improve LFG.

in my experience, less than 25% of lfg users are capable of reading the lfg text.
Making it such that only specified classes can join would remove the frustrations of constantly kicking and re-listing.

Level spec would be pretty good too, as mentioned above, people below level req will try to join, so at the very least make that a requirement. Being able to select level 80s only would also save effort of kicking people after they zone in because they didn’t read.

This would also allow for example, a group of level 35-79s to get together for AC.

There is suggestions of grouping with like-minded people in the huge meta discussion(argument) thread. Adding tools to do this would benefit everyone, making it much easier for like-minded players to find each other.

LFG is broken anyway.

If you are doing a level 50 dungeon, expect that level 50 players will want to run the dungeon.

Quit being an elitist and show players how to run a dungeon with the profession they brought in.

A little kindness goes a long way.

Ravion Hawk.4736:

If you are doing a level 50 dungeon, expect that level 50 players will want to run the dungeon.

Quit being an elitist and show players how to run a dungeon with the profession they brought in.

A little kindness goes a long way.

So because a level 35 wants to join my ac party, I must take them? I have no right to choose who joins me in a dungeon?

Ravion Hawk.4736:

If you are doing a level 50 dungeon, expect that level 50 players will want to run the dungeon.

Quit being an elitist and show players how to run a dungeon with the profession they brought in.

A little kindness goes a long way.

So if I’m running a Level 50 dungeon path and I’m specifically asking for e.g. level 80 eles, I’m should accept a level 56 warrior who didn’t even bothered to read the lfg?
I mean, if a person ignores the simple requirements I set for people I want in my group, he’s not likely to read the party chat and any tips etc., either, is he?

btw.. where did Artemis say that he’s not willing to teach players?

Mental Paradox.3845:

I don’t think you understand GW2 was supposedly built to do away with the kind of discrimination you’re suggesting.

“Play how I want” does not mean “Everyone has to play with me.” The discrimination is going to exist. This suggestion will just make it easier for people to find like-minded players to play with.

If you don’t like the discriminatory groups, make your own LFG with “all welcome!”. It’s as easy as that.

LFG’s with “No rangers” groups sounds good to me.

Gaile Gray.6029:

Xiem.4719:

LFG is broken anyway.

Yes, it is not functioning correctly. The team is looking into the situation.

Can we get a response in the Bug Forum, where the bug report has gone apparently unnoticed? That would go long way to making the Bug Forum seem like the right place to report bugs.

I can see good reasons why a LFG may want a specific class eg PVP- for team composition when a team want to try a synergy of something together.

Any other improvements people would like to see on the LFG system ?

May be fix Fractals numbers in LFG, because they kind of do not represent Tier changes that happend last Fract update (use to be 1-9 10-19 etc.., now its 1-10, 11-20 and so on). Ppl are still confused about this, and LFG does not help what so ever.

And also that lovely bug that when u try to start LFG in Offline mode your post ends up on NA servers, while you are in EU…

Sounds like a good idea that FoTM one.. Shouldn’t be too hard to fix either.

Actually I agree with OP, to be honest this will eliminate much of the contention both here on the forums and in game.

*Casual Players are unaffected as they will not use the new system or be unaware of the change
*Elitist will avoid the uncomfortable encounters with casuals players
*The people who want the change will use it and be happy, the people who oppose the idea will be unaffected since the elitists don’t want to play with them anyways, if anything they will be spared the confrontations they occasionally face

Also I agree that people who do not meet the minimum requirements for an area, dungeon, or mission should not be allowed to join the party simply with a “You do not meet the necessary requirements for this content” message

Would be nice if the FoTM had an agony check ? — on the LFG.
If you don’t have the required AR for the content via LFG you won’t be able to join.

I love it when a new player who has 10AR tries to join a FoTM 50 which requires 70+ AR.
They get kicked pretty quickly from groups mid-run and often don’t understand why.

AR check sounds useful..

Would be nice to further break dungeons down by path.

Inc: Revamped LFG and still many things not fixed by then.

Aguri.2896:

Your idea may sound good on paper but I’m afraid it might cause more stress with casual gamers than the good it will bring. People already feel discriminated enough and while I believe a party should be able to choose what kind of people join I don’t think making something like this official would be good for the game. You can always list what you are looking for, yeah sometimes people won’t read but other than that it works good enough.

Something I would like to see though is something to filter out people who are too low to do the dungeon from joining (like a level 69 trying to do CoF p1 for example). Some people don’t seem to know that a dungeon is higher level than them, or come in expecting to be carried. It’s generally not fun for anyone involved because that person is dead weight due to being two shot all the time. Of course, this system should be optional so if people can still run however they want.

1. Please do not equate casual with stupid. There are plenty casual players that do read the LFG comments, that do perform well or at least perfectly adequate. Likewise, occasinally there are some non-casual players that perform horribly, almost intentionally griefing the rest of the group.

2. OK, so we don’t want to make the 1 bad person feel bad, stressed, etc. But is it OK for that one person to make the other 4 people in group feel stressed and bad ? This argument is baseless due to the fact it can be flipped to exact opposite situation, therefore should not be considered at all.

3. The above 2 points are not exclusive to this game, they are valid within nearly all games in this genre. Within those games there are various working solutions and improvements made which GW2 lacks.

Mental Paradox.3845:

I don’t think you understand GW2 was supposedly built to do away with the kind of discrimination you’re suggesting.

Originally the game was also supposed to work on a “soft trinity” consisting of Damage / Control / Support. however due to a wide range of dev shortcomings this simply isnt the case. The meta is not the “soft trinity” but zerker.

So if the game worked as it was originally supposed to, and you lacked a player or two to cover some part of that trinity, and this caused the group to hit a complete content wall (unable to beat a boss, unable to complete some quest / event, etc.) and the group decided it is necessary to replace 1 of the players in order to get the content done or not do it at all, would this be dicrimination ? I don’t think so. I think this would be a result of individual or group oriented L2P issues.

And if 1 or 2 people in group continuously cause the content completion failures what then ? Personally, I leave and find a better group that can, rather then get stuck for hours until my playtime expires with one that can’t.

Tongku.5326:

Originally the game was also supposed to work on a “soft trinity” consisting of Damage / Control / Support. however due to a wide range of dev shortcomings this simply isnt the case. The meta is not the “soft trinity” but zerker.

Why’s zerker opposing support and control? Zerker is just a stat type.
What you are complaining about is rather that all three (damage, control and support) can be covered by one character so you don’t need several distinct builds.