Group finder: why must we pick a role?

Galwylin · August 2020

With normal dungeons, you might could complete them without the trinity. Several I've done if someone drops out we just keep going even finishing without ever getting the slot filled. But even some of those need a tank. So if its true for one in the system then its standard for all. And one thing about playing with a group, you should play with a group. If you enter in as a tank, healer or damage you should do the job as well as any tank, healer, damage. If you want to build your character the way you want that's great about the game. However, once you sign up to join other people you need to conform. That's quite disrespectful of other people to be dishonest like those people don't matter... like their time is yours to take.

VaranisArano · August 2020

zaria wrote: »

redgreensunset wrote: »

Man I really wish people could just say they hate tanks and healers and move on. Would save all of us so much time. But if you want to do vet hm dungeons without tank and healer then get a premade group. Like not everyone can do a dungeon, regardless of difficulty, with only 4 DDs.
Also it wouldn't even necessarily fly for normal dungeons. Try getting 4 new, level appropriate characters in there, and do it 4 DD style and I assure you that you're being set up for frustration and failure.

This, now it tend to work well enough for guild runs even in causal guilds as experience level is higher you get an mix of people leveling alts and people grinding CP.
But most have all ran into some horrible groups who failed or had failed had you not carried them.

Yeah, no roles can be a real nightmare.

Last time I ran into a fake healer during the Undaunted Event, my Magsorc tank (really a MagDD with a taunt) ended up keeping the group alive through the whole dungeon. Including the fake healer, who liked to rush ahead of the group into the boss, die to the swarm of mobs, then lie dead on the floor until I rezzed him while tanking and dealing a third of the group damage. He just never, ever healed himself. It was bizarre. If I'd been on my main MagDK tank instead, I would stayed alive, but I'd have been rezzing everyone for a thoroughly frustrating experience.

My healer gets fake tanks all the time and I pray that I get boss aggro because at least I can stand still and heal through it. I've seen too many DDs panic and run around dragging the boss out of all the AOEs or, worse, right out of the boss area, resetting the fight. Most fake tanks are relying on their group members to carry them through the fight, mechanics wise.

My IRL friends and I tried a 4DD run. Once. The squishiest DD got boss aggro, pulled the boss out of the fight area by accident, and reset the fight. I said "Eff this", equipped a taunt, and we went tank+3DDs for a much more efficient run.

josiahva · August 2020

Astrid wrote: »

Imagine 4 tanks.

Couldn't be worse than the DPS in some of the pugs I have tanked.

To be honest...I think they should do away with roles entirely for anything but the most difficult of PvE content(or rather, default should be any role, with the possibility to specify roles needed for some content). I think it limits people severely. If you get a group with 4 DPS and they are having trouble with survival....that should inspire one of them to swap to some gear/skill setup that allows them to tank or heal instead....or if you end up with 4 tanks or healers, 2 or 3 could re-spec to DPS(it might be useful to have 2 tanks in content you would normally never see them). Doing it this way would enable some really interesting mechanics for future dungeons...fights that require 2 healers to outheal incoming damage....or fights that require 2 tanks to taunt-swap like the twins in MOL...or fights with a combat pause during the fight that allows you swap loadouts to change from DPS to Tank to Heals as needed for the different stages of the fight. Of course, to do this would require a built-in gear and skill changer instead of an add-on like Dressing Room....but not sure how successful such a thing would be...it would require that you have a good grasp of all roles to be effective in difficult content. I suppose they could do something like that only for specific new content that they design around a system like that.

kargen27 · August 2020

I've suggested a few times there should be an option for players to opt in to allow non traditional groups. They would still be in the same queue and would still need to queue as one of the roles. The group finder would try first to place them in a traditional group and failing that would just put them in with three others that don't care if they get a traditional group or not. Maybe have a two minute wait while looking for a traditional group to stick you in before going with the other option?

Muizer · August 2020

redgreensunset wrote: »

Man I really wish people could just say they hate tanks and healers and move on. Would save all of us so much time. But if you want to do vet hm dungeons without tank and healer then get a premade group. Like not everyone can do a dungeon, regardless of difficulty, with only 4 DDs.
Also it wouldn't even necessarily fly for normal dungeons. Try getting 4 new, level appropriate characters in there, and do it 4 DD style and I assure you that you're being set up for frustration and failure.

Firstly, I hope this isn't inspired by anything I proposed. None of what I suggest is disparaging towards tanks and healers or harms their experience in any way. On the contrary, it would help them by grouping them with actual DD.

Secondly, so what if it doesn't work? It's a risk you take with others who are also prepared to take that risk.

Grianasteri wrote: »

There is already an issue with fake tanks and healers queuing for dungeons (for normal no one cares much, but for vet and vet HMs, its a big issue).

You can join in any combination with a pre-made group.

All but a few players are going to be either dps, heals or tank, so there is no issue queuing as the type of role you actually are. The issue is queue times for dps. But that is a separate issue.

If I need to get content done, gear farmed, I generally go with a healer/tank to reduce queue times, unless of course Im with a premade and can go dps as I please. Pledging as a dps in pugs is also ok, cos a lot more folk are in the queue you need.

Firstly, your problem with fake healers and tanks is due to an excess of people who aren't either. I don't see how you could object against a seperate queue that might siphon some off. If anything, as a healer or tank you're more likely to be matched with someone who is committed to the trinity.

Secondly, atm DD is really just an 'other' group contrasted with healers and tanks. I take myself as an example. If I had to pick, I'd be forced to pick DD, but I'm neither built for nor competent in that role. Apparently you would like people like me to group with you through the group finder? Because you're arguing against an alternative.

VaranisArano wrote: »

You've got it backwards. A tank, healer, and 2 damage dealers aren't some specialized deviation from the norm. They ARE the the norm. Dungeons are literally designed and balanced around having a tank, a healer, and 2 damage dealers. This is not invalidated when some people want to replace the tank or healer with another damage dealer.

So what does that mean for the whole "well, what about a separate non-role queue?"

Well, its asking the Devs to either:
A. Offer an official "at your own risk" queue to play group content in a way for which it was never designed
B. Make an official no-roles queue, and thus take official responsibility for making sure dungeons are balanced for no role as well as role groups.

Meanwhile, there's absolutely no benefit to the Devs here. Players can already get your desired effect by forming premades in zone and guilds. However, there are downsides:
1. You (and most people who suggest this, to be fair) assume that this separate queue will only be used by people who really are competent enough to complete all the dungeons with no tank or healer. LOL. No, a good number of poor to average players will use the queue hoping for lower wait times and fast, easy dungeons. The result will be more dungeon failures on harder dungeons and more complaints about the quality of group members.
2. In the case of A., the Devs now have to deal with the certain segment of players who do not understand that "at your own risk" in fact means you take responsibility for a bad experience. See the players who whine that the Daily Random Dungeon is not always the Daily Guaranteed Quick and Easy Dungeon.
3. In the case of B., that's a big development change for future dungeons and might require updating older content. Its rather hard to balance the same content for a group that may or may not have a tank or could have anywhere from 2 to 4 damage dealers. But if they don't, players will have a bad experience, as dungeons will be dramatically easier or harder than originally intended.
4. Groupfinder development: it took ZOS most of a year to get Groupfinder reworked, and even then several months to get it in working condition after the rework. They just finished it up at the beginning of this year - and we're talking about adding a whole second, parallel queue?
4. Another point of the Groupfinder is to backfill partial groups in dungeons. When you split the dungeon queue, people have to wait longer for replacements.

What this boils down to is asking ZOS to spend an enormous amount of time and effort to do properly something that you can already do with a bit of conversation in zone chat or your guilds. That makes it really unlikely.

The only current solution (and for the foreseeable future): you don't want to play the roles for which group dungeons are designed? Make a premade group.

Firstly, thanks for your elaborate response!

Secondly, see my earlier comment about 'wanting to replace tanks and healers'. I don't get where that comes from. Please explain.

Thirdly, as to the benefit vs recruiting in chat or via guilds, it is exactly the same as for anyone else using the group finder.

Fourthly I understand what you mean by what I'll summarize as 'expectation management'. But the fact that something wasn't designed for a particular play style, doesn't mean there's no demand for it. If you'd say 'we have to collect some data on that demand' before we decide, then well, of course, but to look away from a possible opportunity to provide a service just because you didn't anticipate the demand for it would be bad business.

Muizer · August 2020

kargen27 wrote: »

I've suggested a few times there should be an option for players to opt in to allow non traditional groups. They would still be in the same queue and would still need to queue as one of the roles. The group finder would try first to place them in a traditional group and failing that would just put them in with three others that don't care if they get a traditional group or not. Maybe have a two minute wait while looking for a traditional group to stick you in before going with the other option?

That sounds like a better plan than mine. +rep. I mean, I think it amounts to roughly the same in practice (given the excess of DD) but it avoids the "please don't group me with healers or tanks" interpretation that some seem to have read into it and that could theoretically indeed be the effect.

Jeremy · August 2020

Muizer wrote: »

I get that if you want to assemble a standard tank-healer-2damage-dealer group it is helpful to know preferred roles, but it is not as if that setup is in all cases necessary to clear the content. So why does the group finder obligate us to fit that pattern or lie about our role. Should there not be a 'none of the above' option for non-role-specialized players (e.g. solo PvE and PvP players) who just want group at their own risk to run a dungeon casually?

To be frank, I do not know much about the group finder use, because believe it or not I've always stumbled on that hurdle of having to specify a role I'm not specialized for. I suppose most people use 'damage dealer' as the default, but as I said, for me that would be a lie, because I tend to sacrifice a lot of damage for survivability. A specialized player would rightly be dissatisfied about being grouped with me.

Am I overlooking something? Am I being too scrupulous? What do you think?

EDIT for clarity in response to issues and concerns raised here. Required reading if you want to jump into the discussion without bothering to read the all answers so far
Having a 'no role' option would evidently have to be accompanied by its own algorithm for grouping. As several have suggested, it might mean you would only be grouped with others who have likewise selected 'no role' or perhaps people who specify a role could have this as a fall-back option.

I wouldn't be against adding another option for players to sign up for a non-traditional group. That seems reasonable

A problem though is people would use this option when signing up for randomized content. So it would probably just increase the frequency players use the dungeon finder as a slot machine to drop out of when ever it lands on a DLC dungeon.

zaria · August 2020

Galwylin wrote: »

With normal dungeons, you might could complete them without the trinity. Several I've done if someone drops out we just keep going even finishing without ever getting the slot filled. But even some of those need a tank. So if its true for one in the system then its standard for all. And one thing about playing with a group, you should play with a group. If you enter in as a tank, healer or damage you should do the job as well as any tank, healer, damage. If you want to build your character the way you want that's great about the game. However, once you sign up to join other people you need to conform. That's quite disrespectful of other people to be dishonest like those people don't matter... like their time is yours to take.

We tend to do guild random normal like this, all is welcome, then if some can heal they select healer, then some select tank and we go. Granted its mostly people who level alts or grind cp who join so they have some experience.
If you get 4 who spam snipe and crystal frag you get problems, never forgot the first time I leveled an tank, was 48 so last dungeon before I got 50.
Found that BC2 has two dps checks, keeper Indril and the daedrots on last boss. You can wipe on both in normal.
As I focused on tanking leveling up I had no DD skills, thought I added them later for an overland setup.
Now vBC2 HM on an low dsp group is kind of an problem if DD don't kill overflowing daedrots.

Fur_like_snow · August 2020

Always brings a smile to face to read that a ESO tank is just a DD with taunt on backbar.

VaranisArano · August 2020

Fur_like_snow wrote: »

Always brings a smile to face to read that a ESO tank is just a DD with taunt on backbar.

My main tank is not. She's built for CC, buffs and debuffs.

My "I'm queuing as a tank to get my Daily Random Normal Dungeon done" tanks are indeed DDs with a taunt who hold boss aggro and don't die when the boss farts in their general direction. Which does elevate over most fake tanks my poor healer gets.

VaranisArano · August 2020

Muizer wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

You've got it backwards. A tank, healer, and 2 damage dealers aren't some specialized deviation from the norm. They ARE the the norm. Dungeons are literally designed and balanced around having a tank, a healer, and 2 damage dealers. This is not invalidated when some people want to replace the tank or healer with another damage dealer.

So what does that mean for the whole "well, what about a separate non-role queue?"

Well, its asking the Devs to either:
A. Offer an official "at your own risk" queue to play group content in a way for which it was never designed
B. Make an official no-roles queue, and thus take official responsibility for making sure dungeons are balanced for no role as well as role groups.

Meanwhile, there's absolutely no benefit to the Devs here. Players can already get your desired effect by forming premades in zone and guilds. However, there are downsides:
1. You (and most people who suggest this, to be fair) assume that this separate queue will only be used by people who really are competent enough to complete all the dungeons with no tank or healer. LOL. No, a good number of poor to average players will use the queue hoping for lower wait times and fast, easy dungeons. The result will be more dungeon failures on harder dungeons and more complaints about the quality of group members.
2. In the case of A., the Devs now have to deal with the certain segment of players who do not understand that "at your own risk" in fact means you take responsibility for a bad experience. See the players who whine that the Daily Random Dungeon is not always the Daily Guaranteed Quick and Easy Dungeon.
3. In the case of B., that's a big development change for future dungeons and might require updating older content. Its rather hard to balance the same content for a group that may or may not have a tank or could have anywhere from 2 to 4 damage dealers. But if they don't, players will have a bad experience, as dungeons will be dramatically easier or harder than originally intended.
4. Groupfinder development: it took ZOS most of a year to get Groupfinder reworked, and even then several months to get it in working condition after the rework. They just finished it up at the beginning of this year - and we're talking about adding a whole second, parallel queue?
4. Another point of the Groupfinder is to backfill partial groups in dungeons. When you split the dungeon queue, people have to wait longer for replacements.

What this boils down to is asking ZOS to spend an enormous amount of time and effort to do properly something that you can already do with a bit of conversation in zone chat or your guilds. That makes it really unlikely.

The only current solution (and for the foreseeable future): you don't want to play the roles for which group dungeons are designed? Make a premade group.

Firstly, thanks for your elaborate response!

Secondly, see my earlier comment about 'wanting to replace tanks and healers'. I don't get where that comes from. Please explain.

Thirdly, as to the benefit vs recruiting in chat or via guilds, it is exactly the same as for anyone else using the group finder.

Fourthly I understand what you mean by what I'll summarize as 'expectation management'. But the fact that something wasn't designed for a particular play style, doesn't mean there's no demand for it. If you'd say 'we have to collect some data on that demand' before we decide, then well, of course, but to look away from a possible opportunity to provide a service just because you didn't anticipate the demand for it would be bad business.

For removing tanks and healers, I think that assumption comes from a couple reasons.
1. When people make non-standard groups, it's usually the healer, and then the tank to a lesser extent, who get left out. I don't have data to back this up, but tank+3DDs seems to be the most common non-standard group. That may not be your intent, but its how people would use the new queue. In order to avoid non-efficient groups with multiple healers or tanks, the new queue would mostly be used by self-sufficient damage dealers (Or players who think they are, in any case. Its amazing how much most fake tanks get carried by my healer.)
2. Healers and tanks generally don't have problems with the current queue because of higher demand. Thus, siphoning off DDs doesn't really help them, since there's no guarantee that remaining DDs will be better or worse than those in the non-standard queue.
3. Good healers and tanks generally also know good DDs when they want to make a premade group. So again, the non-standard queue really doesn't help them out at all.

I don't think healers and tank necessarily be hurt by having, effectively, a queue for players who want healers and tanks. On the other hand, the non-standard queue is going to be the queue for players who don't want tanks and healers. And there are a lot of would-be self-sufficient damage dealers who aren't actually all that self-sufficient or good at dealing damage, especially when the boss is running around untainted.

That "benefit" is to ZOS as compared to the downside of the time, effort and money it would take to implement a non-standard queue and balance accordingly. It's much better for them that people use the zone or guild to form non-standard groups. Groupfinder, with its roles, is the standard for group dungeons. Where's the monetary benefit to ZOS for them spending time, money, and effort to implement a non-standard queue AND rebalance group dungeons for non-standard role combos?

That demand is already being met by the ability to make non-standard groups in zone chat and guilds. Unless you think there's a big demand from people who can't use zone chat or their guilds to form non-standard groups?

Casdha · August 2020

Personally I never know what role to pick with my main character. I mostly solo with him and I would consider him a Brawler. He does 30 to 60k on mobs and dips down into the teens on main bosses when I solo group dungeons. When I run with a group I only go with guild members because my dps is not high enough to be considered as such and I don't have a taunt so I can't be a tank either. That said I can't tell you the last time I got killed in a normal group dungeon that doesn't have some sort of one shot ot team mechanic. I've even soloed a few vet versions.

VaranisArano · August 2020

Casdha wrote: »

Personally I never know what role to pick with my main character. I mostly solo with him and I would consider him a Brawler. He does 30 to 60k on mobs and dips down into the teens on main bosses when I solo group dungeons. When I run with a group I only go with guild members because my dps is not high enough to be considered as such and I don't have a taunt so I can't be a tank either. That said I can't tell you the last time I got killed in a normal group dungeon that doesn't have some sort of one shot ot team mechanic. I've even soloed a few vet versions.

That should be sufficient for a damage dealer in normal dungeons. Most of the ones I meet seem to do around 10 to 15k DPS.

Itzmichi · August 2020

Muizer wrote: »

I get that if you want to assemble a standard tank-healer-2damage-dealer group it is helpful to know preferred roles, but it is not as if that setup is in all cases necessary to clear the content. So why does the group finder obligate us to fit that pattern or lie about our role. Should there not be a 'none of the above' option for non-role-specialized players (e.g. solo PvE and PvP players) who just want group at their own risk to run a dungeon casually?

To be frank, I do not know much about the group finder use, because believe it or not I've always stumbled on that hurdle of having to specify a role I'm not specialized for. I suppose most people use 'damage dealer' as the default, but as I said, for me that would be a lie, because I tend to sacrifice a lot of damage for survivability. A specialized player would rightly be dissatisfied about being grouped with me.

Am I overlooking something? Am I being too scrupulous? What do you think?

EDIT for clarity in response to issues and concerns raised here. Required reading if you want to jump into the discussion without bothering to read the all answers so far
Having a 'no role' option would evidently have to be accompanied by its own algorithm for grouping. As several have suggested, it might mean you would only be grouped with others who have likewise selected 'no role' or perhaps people who specify a role could have this as a fall-back option.

I mean sure have this no role option but just let this people have a separate queue so everybody else dont need to deal with this people.

I mean i can't be bothered carrying this weird hybrid tankler damage dealers through content while hoping they are dropping their ice staff so I can proper taunt stuff.

Casdha · August 2020

VaranisArano wrote: »

Casdha wrote: »

Personally I never know what role to pick with my main character. I mostly solo with him and I would consider him a Brawler. He does 30 to 60k on mobs and dips down into the teens on main bosses when I solo group dungeons. When I run with a group I only go with guild members because my dps is not high enough to be considered as such and I don't have a taunt so I can't be a tank either. That said I can't tell you the last time I got killed in a normal group dungeon that doesn't have some sort of one shot ot team mechanic. I've even soloed a few vet versions.

That should be sufficient for a damage dealer in normal dungeons. Most of the ones I meet seem to do around 10 to 15k DPS.

I should probably quantify that statement, I don't do DPS tests per say, those numbers are from the built in DPS thing in Bandit's UI and I'm solo in a group dungeon so I know what I see is just me.

idk · August 2020

With a group of skilled players, they can do most if not all dungeons without the trinity. For the point of this thread, the GF is filled with players that lack experience and skill. Heck, I have seen fake tanks that were terrible DPS and lacked the basic understanding of mechanics, so they kept getting one shot when blocking the telegraphed attack would have been enough to keep them alive.

That is why the GF requires and should continue to require without exception, players to select roles, and the group formed based on the typical trinity. Heck, I have cleared many vet DLC dungeons on HM without healer or trinity. We are all welcome to go into these dungeons with whatever group we want, and we have to form the group ourselves, which makes total sense.

erio · August 2020

please dont put me in a group of all 200 cp players who are all marked tank for the faster queue and have 13k hp

Muizer · August 2020

@VaranisArano Fair enough. I think we're on the same page about the effect it would have. As to whether that's positive or negative ... to each his own and in the end ZOS decides.

@idk
Not sure I follow. Are you saying that because the GF is full of less experienced players they need to go in as trinity because that's their best chance? But surely, that is for players themselves to decide? They also have to pick normal vs veteran. Why can't they be entrusted to take the gamble to go in in a non-standard group, where they are grouped with people taking the same risk? Is your argument that in that case the competence in the trinity queue would go down, making it harder for inexperienced groups? Please explain.

Also, what about queue times for DD? Is it better to leave them dangling there or picking an alternative 'fake role' , than doing what Kargen27 proposed and say: if people have been waiting for an X amount of time for their preferred role spot they can opt in to being grouped sub-optimally.

What's worse. Accepting long wait times and people faking roles to avoid them, or giving people the option to give it a shot with the best available group (probably mainly DD as it stands).

Ysbriel · August 2020

In nomine taque et medicus et in dampnum furente, that is the reality of the dungeons of this game. If you want to do otherwise (which you can) just assemble a premade group with people that are aware of how things are going to be like. You already have an opportunity and option of adding friends and joining guilds, there might be people just like you that can get together and jump straight into the dungeon.

VaranisArano · August 2020

Casdha wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Casdha wrote: »

Personally I never know what role to pick with my main character. I mostly solo with him and I would consider him a Brawler. He does 30 to 60k on mobs and dips down into the teens on main bosses when I solo group dungeons. When I run with a group I only go with guild members because my dps is not high enough to be considered as such and I don't have a taunt so I can't be a tank either. That said I can't tell you the last time I got killed in a normal group dungeon that doesn't have some sort of one shot ot team mechanic. I've even soloed a few vet versions.

That should be sufficient for a damage dealer in normal dungeons. Most of the ones I meet seem to do around 10 to 15k DPS.

I should probably quantify that statement, I don't do DPS tests per say, those numbers are from the built in DPS thing in Bandit's UI and I'm solo in a group dungeon so I know what I see is just me.

Hey, if you are soloing the dungeon, you'll do fine as a damage dealer if you want to.

idk · August 2020

Muizer wrote: »

Not sure I follow. Are you saying that because the GF is full of less experienced players they need to go in as trinity because that's their best chance? But surely, that is for players themselves to decide? They also have to pick normal vs veteran. Why can't they be entrusted to take the gamble to go in in a non-standard group, where they are grouped with people taking the same risk? Is your argument that in that case the competence in the trinity queue would go down, making it harder for inexperienced groups? Please explain.

Also, what about queue times for DD? Is it better to leave them dangling there or picking an alternative 'fake role' , than doing what Kargen27 proposed and say: if people have been waiting for an X amount of time for their preferred role spot they can opt in to being grouped sub-optimally.

What's worse. Accepting long wait times and people faking roles to avoid them, or giving people the option to give it a shot with the best available group (probably mainly DD as it stands).

I thought I was clear that not all players are skilled enough to clear most, or even any, vet dungeons without the trinity. Most reasonably skilled players avoid the GF because there are so many bad players that use the GF and they would just rather not deal with it.

Varanis pointed out how low the GF DPS players can be, to which you agreed. However, that did not point out the other problem, is that they die all to often because they are oblivious to the damage that will kill them instantly if they do not move out (or block/shield) of the brightly telegraphed area.

You ask about the long queue times for DDs yet I never have a long queue time because I take the couple minutes it takes to form a group. Are you really suggesting it would be better to let those DDs enter into major fail groups because they cannot be bothered to form a group? I guess either way they deserve the wait of the failed group.

In the end, you suggest giving people a shot at the best possible group but that is the best possible group of the worst possible players. That makes no sense. Especially when forming your own group is so easy.

Muizer · August 2020

idk wrote: »

I thought I was clear that not all players are skilled enough to clear most, or even any, vet dungeons without the trinity. Most reasonably skilled players avoid the GF because there are so many bad players that use the GF and they would just rather not deal with it.

Varanis pointed out how low the GF DPS players can be, to which you agreed. However, that did not point out the other problem, is that they die all to often because they are oblivious to the damage that will kill them instantly if they do not move out (or block/shield) of the brightly telegraphed area.

I understand what you're saying, just not how it is relevant to this discussion. I do not propose removing the 'trinity queue'.
Are you saying that it is bad to offer a non-trinity grouping because players need to be protected from themselves, even if they expressly indicate they are prepared to go in with an alternative group composition?

idk wrote: »

You ask about the long queue times for DDs yet I never have a long queue time because I take the couple minutes it takes to form a group. Are you really suggesting it would be better to let those DDs enter into major fail groups because they cannot be bothered to form a group? In the end, you suggest giving people a shot at the best possible group but that is the best possible group of the worst possible players. That makes no sense. Especially when forming your own group is so easy.

If it were really that easy, why is there an excess of DD in the GF and why are there DD faking healer and tank to escape it? Mind, if someone fakes to be a healer or tank, then they know for certain the group won't be trinity. So there, all the fakers being complained about are people who are already settling for a suboptimal group. Why not facilitate it properly if there's demand for it?

And if it is that easy for you to form a group by other means, then why is this discussion even of interest to you? How is that an argument against an alternative? I find festivals a waste of time, but I'm not going to actively argue against them either.

Oreyn_Bearclaw · August 2020

Simply put, 4 random DPS with no comms are going to fail 95% of the time in vet content. It is not in ZOS's interest to have a higher failure rate in group-finder than already exists.

I do think there is probably a sizable collection of normal dungeons where it probably wouldnt matter, but even on normal, certain things do need taunted a lot of the time.

The best thing ZOS could do with the groupfinder is to give more standard options. And they also probably need threshold criteria for people to queue for some of them. Make a groupfinder for max CP vet DLC. Make one for the daily pledges perhaps 300 CP and above (HMs disabled) and one for 600 CP and up (Hardmodes optional). Make a few different tiers of difficulty on vet. If I queue for tier one, I am probably not getting any DLC or some of the harder standard dungeons. Obviously these would need tweaked, but you get the idea.

AlnilamE · August 2020

Muizer wrote: »

idk wrote: »

I thought I was clear that not all players are skilled enough to clear most, or even any, vet dungeons without the trinity. Most reasonably skilled players avoid the GF because there are so many bad players that use the GF and they would just rather not deal with it.

Varanis pointed out how low the GF DPS players can be, to which you agreed. However, that did not point out the other problem, is that they die all to often because they are oblivious to the damage that will kill them instantly if they do not move out (or block/shield) of the brightly telegraphed area.

I understand what you're saying, just not how it is relevant to this discussion. I do not propose removing the 'trinity queue'.
Are you saying that it is bad to offer a non-trinity grouping because players need to be protected from themselves, even if they expressly indicate they are prepared to go in with an alternative group composition?

idk wrote: »

You ask about the long queue times for DDs yet I never have a long queue time because I take the couple minutes it takes to form a group. Are you really suggesting it would be better to let those DDs enter into major fail groups because they cannot be bothered to form a group? In the end, you suggest giving people a shot at the best possible group but that is the best possible group of the worst possible players. That makes no sense. Especially when forming your own group is so easy.

If it were really that easy, why is there an excess of DD in the GF and why are there DD faking healer and tank to escape it? Mind, if someone fakes to be a healer or tank, then they know for certain the group won't be trinity. So there, all the fakers being complained about are people who are already settling for a suboptimal group. Why not facilitate it properly if there's demand for it?

And if it is that easy for you to form a group by other means, then why is this discussion even of interest to you? How is that an argument against an alternative? I find festivals a waste of time, but I'm not going to actively argue against them either.

People seem to prefer DPS to tanking and healing for some reason. I don't know, people are weird...

That's why you have more DPS than tanks or healers. Also, keep in mind that for Trials, the proportion of DPS to support is higher, so it's less of a problem there.

The thing you need to consider is that there are people who queue for a random dungeon and people who queue for specific dungeons.

The random queue is there to fill in the groups for people who queue for specific dungeons.

So if you had 2 choices of queue now, who would be setting that? Does the person queuing for a random "no role" have to wait till someone queuing for a specific dungeon also selects "no role"?

And let's be clear, "no role" really means DPS.

You yourself haven't said that you are anything other than a DPS with a bit more survivability. You are not taunting mobs or focusing on healing other players, so a DPS is what you are.

josiahva · August 2020

Oreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »

Simply put, 4 random DPS with no comms are going to fail 95% of the time in vet content. It is not in ZOS's interest to have a higher failure rate in group-finder than already exists.

I do think there is probably a sizable collection of normal dungeons where it probably wouldnt matter, but even on normal, certain things do need taunted a lot of the time.

The best thing ZOS could do with the groupfinder is to give more standard options. And they also probably need threshold criteria for people to queue for some of them. Make a groupfinder for max CP vet DLC. Make one for the daily pledges perhaps 300 CP and above (HMs disabled) and one for 600 CP and up (Hardmodes optional). Make a few different tiers of difficulty on vet. If I queue for tier one, I am probably not getting any DLC or some of the harder standard dungeons. Obviously these would need tweaked, but you get the idea.

I highly doubt 4 DPS are going to fail 95% on vet dungeons...unless those dungeons are vet DLC...and even then, if the DPS are actually competent DPS, they are just going to burn it all down anyway...so one of them gets one-shot....who cares? the other 3 will continue to burn(or at least 2 while 1 stops to pick the dead one up). I speak as a tank who routinely runs with 3 DPS groups...those guys burn everything in their path, the mechanics barely even come into play often enough. There are of course exceptions to this where a healer or tank is needed, but I would say the average completion rate with 4 DPS would likely be 70% or better in most vet dungeons...and only that low because stuff is going to be moving around a lot and cause wipes that wouldn't happen with the conventional setup. I am a tank....but I realize that in most content while it might be nice to have a tank...its certainly not a requirement. This is simply how the game is designed and the players it caters too...as power creep continues, this will only become more the rule and less the exception to it.

zaria · August 2020

Ysbriel wrote: »

In nomine taque et medicus et in dampnum furente, that is the reality of the dungeons of this game. If you want to do otherwise (which you can) just assemble a premade group with people that are aware of how things are going to be like. You already have an opportunity and option of adding friends and joining guilds, there might be people just like you that can get together and jump straight into the dungeon.

This, as said we tend to do free for all in at least two guilds but this tend to be an mix of people getting alts to 50 and others grinding CP on multiple alts, so most has gear and some sort of rotation.

Now an issue might be lots of the ones doing this will be the frag spamming ones, doing it as queue is shorter and its always some who want to grind CP and can carry or some low level giving easy one, you don't but you get march of sacrifices

idk · August 2020

Muizer wrote: »

idk wrote: »

I thought I was clear that not all players are skilled enough to clear most, or even any, vet dungeons without the trinity. Most reasonably skilled players avoid the GF because there are so many bad players that use the GF and they would just rather not deal with it.

Varanis pointed out how low the GF DPS players can be, to which you agreed. However, that did not point out the other problem, is that they die all to often because they are oblivious to the damage that will kill them instantly if they do not move out (or block/shield) of the brightly telegraphed area.

I understand what you're saying, just not how it is relevant to this discussion. I do not propose removing the 'trinity queue'.
Are you saying that it is bad to offer a non-trinity grouping because players need to be protected from themselves, even if they expressly indicate they are prepared to go in with an alternative group composition?

idk wrote: »

You ask about the long queue times for DDs yet I never have a long queue time because I take the couple minutes it takes to form a group. Are you really suggesting it would be better to let those DDs enter into major fail groups because they cannot be bothered to form a group? In the end, you suggest giving people a shot at the best possible group but that is the best possible group of the worst possible players. That makes no sense. Especially when forming your own group is so easy.

If it were really that easy, why is there an excess of DD in the GF and why are there DD faking healer and tank to escape it? Mind, if someone fakes to be a healer or tank, then they know for certain the group won't be trinity. So there, all the fakers being complained about are people who are already settling for a suboptimal group. Why not facilitate it properly if there's demand for it?

And if it is that easy for you to form a group by other means, then why is this discussion even of interest to you? How is that an argument against an alternative? I find festivals a waste of time, but I'm not going to actively argue against them either.

1. There will only be one queue for dungeons. Splitting the player base that has to use the GF to find a group into two means most will use whatever gets the quickest queue pop and the fact you started this conversation merely demonstrates this is correct.

Do you really think only skilled and experienced players would use the queue you are suggesting and everything will be peaches and cream? The realistic answer is no. It is why we already have a second system called forming ones own group.

2. It really is that easy. I have never had problems forming a group from my guilds. The reason most decent tanks avoid the GF is that the GF groups are often very bad, as I have been saying and as you have agreed to in part when you agreed with Varanis. I know tanks that would rather not run a dungeon than deal with the group they would often get with a GF group.

idk · August 2020

josiahva wrote: »

Oreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »

Simply put, 4 random DPS with no comms are going to fail 95% of the time in vet content. It is not in ZOS's interest to have a higher failure rate in group-finder than already exists.

I do think there is probably a sizable collection of normal dungeons where it probably wouldnt matter, but even on normal, certain things do need taunted a lot of the time.

The best thing ZOS could do with the groupfinder is to give more standard options. And they also probably need threshold criteria for people to queue for some of them. Make a groupfinder for max CP vet DLC. Make one for the daily pledges perhaps 300 CP and above (HMs disabled) and one for 600 CP and up (Hardmodes optional). Make a few different tiers of difficulty on vet. If I queue for tier one, I am probably not getting any DLC or some of the harder standard dungeons. Obviously these would need tweaked, but you get the idea.

I highly doubt 4 DPS are going to fail 95% on vet dungeons...unless those dungeons are vet DLC...and even then, if the DPS are actually competent DPS, they are just going to burn it all down anyway...

This sums up the assumption that is not supported by the realist of the large number of players who rely on the GF to form a group for them. It assumes the players that would use this new queue would all be competent (both have good DPS and awareness of mechanics)

The reality is I have seen a great number of players from the GF that would fail 95% of the time and we cannot exclude DLCs as they are more than a third of the dungeons available. I have seen players who died (multiple times) to the chokethorn in vEH 1 and dungeons do not get much easier than that. Most of these same players also died to the Canonreeve.

This is reality, not an assumption.

wishlist14 · August 2020

Roles are important to working as a team

UGotBenched91 · August 2020

Or the game could you know...re-work classes so all roles are actually needed. [snip]

[Edited to remove Bashing]