Maintenance for the week of April 6:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
Group Finder grouping players of disparate levels
-
ForzaRammer✭✭✭✭✭
✭allhailskippy wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »Yes, my solution will definitely result in longer que in non pledge dungeons. That’s by design to improve performance.
Slow things down to make them go faster. Got it.ForzaRammer wrote: »Why not just form your own group for non pledge dungeons? There is no que for vdsa or vbrp anyways, I honestly don’t mind removing dungeon finder completely.
Cool. You do that. Rest of us will carry on. Me, I'd like to see a queue for both of those places.
Except it doesn’t work the other way, i can still get LOM queing random as 4 man group. The reward is tight to the current ‘random’ system, which give way to much leverage to people who deserve non of it.
0 -
El_Borracho✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭ForzaRammer wrote: »El_Borracho wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »allhailskippy wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »allhailskippy wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »On top of this, it also put more stress on the server.
You're gonna have to back that one up.
Before i explain, i must ask, do you code at all? I am mediocre at best on coding, but i understand how simple que works, and only remove from the head the que is less computation than allowing removing from middle of the que.
Yup. Professionally.
Please also factor 3 distinct roles in your queue explanation.
And the fact that there are 20 something dungeons to select from.
Essentially my solution is 6 simply que for each dungeon, 2 for each role, low prio and high prio, no cross check between different dungeon, only check if que is empty with in same dungeon. To encourage behaviour lower ram usage, only allowing que 1 dungeon at a time, player can sit in more than 1, but pre ready check check should be auto fail.
On your screen you can see if you are qued, which means server is already tracking it. When a player que a dungeon, an obj is added to a the end of the low prio que based on role, check the other 5 que. If at least 1 que for all 3 role is non empty, select the first element in que, high prio over low prio.
Player who ready checked but did not join dungeon is moved to the back of high prio que. player who failed ready check is not in that que anymore. No need to remove player from the middle of anyque, simply auto fail the ready check when 1 of the player status does not meet requirements.
Tell me, how exactly can the current system not do cross check between different dungeons?
Dude.... what?
Right now, it takes much, much longer to queue for individual dungeons than it does through the group finder. Now, imagine adding in having to find a player at or near my CP level
HARD PASS
Yes, my solution will definitely result in longer que in non pledge dungeons. That’s by design to improve performance.
Why not just form your own group for non pledge dungeons? There is no que for vdsa or vbrp anyways, I honestly don’t mind removing dungeon finder completely.
In craglorn, the tank gets way more leverage on who to pick, higher skilled dd are way more likely to be chosen over lower skilled dd.
This is great, the least chosen role deserve the most leverage. The more capable player gets to go first.
It takes about 15-20 minutes on a good day for a DPS to get into a dungeon via group finder. Waiting for a non-pledge dungeon takes at least twice as long. I can't fathom how long waiting for 4 1,600+ players to group for a specific non-pledge dungeon would take.
BTW, none of this would guarantee "improved performance." I've played this game long enough to realize CP means absolutely nothing when it comes to performance. Under the old CP system, 810's would routinely be disappointing-to-awful in dungeons. CP300-500 would frequently outperform them. The new CP system only builds in more resistance, damage, healing, etc. It does nothing to improve the player's ability, single out PVP-spec players farming gear, or simply bad players looking for carries.
And why should we scrap group finder altogether? Maybe players who are concerned about grouping with players they consider to be their equal should do that on their own. Instead of use a system that is known to be totally random. There's always area chat to throw out an invite...2 -
renne✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭ForzaRammer wrote: »allhailskippy wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »allhailskippy wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »allhailskippy wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »allhailskippy wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »allhailskippy wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »Zos’s spaghetti code is not even running smooth with this basic feature, op requested unnecessary features will negatively impact game performance.
If anything zos should remove random dungeon completely, just move the exp elsewhere, like pledge. This will not only stop people getting liar of massalork from que, and also reduce server load.
What player is like ‘oh please surprise me with a dungeon, I don’t even know what dungeon I want’?
Me? I like that.
Perfect, then randomly sample a dungeon name.
If you are too lazy to write 4 lines of code. Here is what zos can do.
Add something called random dungeon sampler, basically sort dungeon name alphabetically. Sample an integer in the index range. Display that name of dungeon at that index.
Then player can proceed to que that dungeon via specific que.
The benefit of doing random is that you potentially get paired with people who want to do specific dungeons. Filling roles they need to do that.
Me just putting in a single dungeon only matches me in the event that I happen to pick that specific dungeon.
I don't know if you've ever tried that for a specific dungeon, but the wait time is bad. Like. Really bad. Do not recommend.
So you are saying just because you qued just lair of massalork, 3 other people who happen to que random at same time, must do lair of massalork or waste 15 min.
On top of this, it also put more stress on the server.
Damn right people who qued LOM should be only matched with people who qued LOM.
Why? Random dungeon is just = don't care which dungeon. I definitely prefer something like Lair vs Fungal 1, but I'll take either when I chose random. That's the point of random.
So to you, a truly uniformly random selection is bad? But letting some dude who qued specific dungeon (thus pick the dungeon) at the same time as me queing random que is good?
What you like is not truly random index. It’s a constant value index that I am not shown.
I'm saying that I'd rather have a group get built. Using the GROUP FINDER than wait forever because you don't like LOM.
Do you want increased wait times? Because that's how you increase wait times.
What increased wait times? Certainly not for FG1.ForzaRammer wrote: »allhailskippy wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »allhailskippy wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »On top of this, it also put more stress on the server.
You're gonna have to back that one up.
Before i explain, i must ask, do you code at all? I am mediocre at best on coding, but i understand how simple que works, and only remove from the head the que is less computation than allowing removing from middle of the que.
Yup. Professionally.
Please also factor 3 distinct roles in your queue explanation.
And the fact that there are 20 something dungeons to select from.
Essentially my solution is 6 simply que for each dungeon, 2 for each role, low prio and high prio, no cross check between different dungeon, only check if que is empty with in same dungeon. To encourage behaviour lower ram usage, only allowing que 1 dungeon at a time, player can sit in more than 1, but pre ready check check should be auto fail.
On your screen you can see if you are qued, which means server is already tracking it. When a player que a dungeon, an obj is added to a the end of the low prio que based on role, check the other 5 que. If at least 1 que for all 3 role is non empty, select the first element in que, high prio over low prio.
Player who ready checked but did not join dungeon is moved to the back of high prio que. player who failed ready check is not in that que anymore. No need to remove player from the middle of anyque, simply auto fail the ready check when 1 of the player status does not meet requirements.
Tell me, how exactly can the current system not do cross check between different dungeons?
So your solution is to let players only
1. Select only one dungeon
2. Wait until 3 other people have also selected said dungeon
3. Field infinite amounts of anger generated by these 2 decisions.
How about this?
Do what you suggested, but instead also have a "I'll play whatever" queue. That will fill these empty spots quickly instead of waiting for hours for your 4th dps to show up. Maybe call it... "Random Dungeon" queue or something like that.
By taking that queue away, you increase wait times.
Regardless of the actual mechanics of how the dungeon finder actually work. Your suggestions will by their nature make it more difficult to match with people. And I'm certain that this system is far more complex than you might think, because if there was a "simple fix" they'd have done it by now.
It’s by design to make it harder to match for LOM to achieve performance gain, as well as stop people who specifically que it waste my time.
Remove features completely is a great way reduce computation. Select only 1 dungeon is perfect fine for those who just want to do the pledge dungeon anyways.
A feature work to my disadvantage is a feature I advocate to remove.
Wait, why should other people be punished just because YOU don't want to run [one specific dungeon]?
Why don't YOU just queue for specific dungeons in that case instead of wanting everyone else to be punished for a feature you don't even have to use?1 -
kargen27✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭ForzaRammer wrote: »allhailskippy wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »allhailskippy wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »Zos’s spaghetti code is not even running smooth with this basic feature, op requested unnecessary features will negatively impact game performance.
If anything zos should remove random dungeon completely, just move the exp elsewhere, like pledge. This will not only stop people getting liar of massalork from que, and also reduce server load.
What player is like ‘oh please surprise me with a dungeon, I don’t even know what dungeon I want’?
Me? I like that.
Perfect, then randomly sample a dungeon name.
If you are too lazy to write 4 lines of code. Here is what zos can do.
Add something called random dungeon sampler, basically sort dungeon name alphabetically. Sample an integer in the index range. Display that name of dungeon at that index.
Then player can proceed to que that dungeon via specific que.
The benefit of doing random is that you potentially get paired with people who want to do specific dungeons. Filling roles they need to do that.
Me just putting in a single dungeon only matches me in the event that I happen to pick that specific dungeon.
I don't know if you've ever tried that for a specific dungeon, but the wait time is bad. Like. Really bad. Do not recommend.
So you are saying just because you qued just lair of massalork, 3 other people who happen to que random at same time, must do lair of massalork or waste 15 min.
On top of this, it also put more stress on the server.
Damn right people who qued LOM should be only matched with people who qued LOM.
How does it put more stress on the server? And I am guessing from some of my wait times doing specific dungeons I don't get moved to the top because I selected a specific dungeon.
The random is there to fill groups for players who want a specific dungeon. Take away that feature and there is no reason to have a random queue.and then the parrot said, "must be the water mines green too."0 -
Zer0_CooL✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Well if the queue is taking too long maybe find friends or guild mates to get into the dungeons faster
And exactly thats the solution to your problem. Glad i could help you.
0 -
redlink1979✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭"Sweet Mother, sweet Mother, send your child unto me, for the sins of the unworthy must be baptized in blood and fear"- Sons of the Night Mother | VforVendetta | Grownups Gaming EU | English Elders [PS][EU] 2500 CP
- Daggerfall's Mightiest | Eternal Champions | Legacy | Tamriel Melting Pot [PS][NA] 2300 CP
- SweetTrolls | Spring Rose | Daggerfall Royal Legion | Tinnitus Delux [PC][EU] 2525 CP
- Bacon Rats | Silverlight Brotherhood | Canis Root Tea Party | Vincula Doloris [PC][NA] 2300 CP
1 -
AyaDark✭✭✭✭✭Dungeon grouping is a problem in that VERY experienced players are being grouped with novices.
How can anyone properly learn dungeons when high level characters are wiping the floor before others have a chance to participate?
There’s got to be a better way of grouping players based on level on CP.
You can’t group based on “skill” because an experienced player could still play a new character. But even if they’re grouped with players of similar level, it would not be as bad because they could actually be better to show the ropes - like ZOS had hoped experienced players would.
But what do you think?
———————————————————
Edit:
Point being that I think there is a problem and how the group finder is working out for players.
There is no denying the fact that the finder is often a new players first experience with dungeons AND that there has been reported problems of high level characters rushing low level dungeons ruining the experience for everyone else.
Would it not make sense that high-level players just be grouped together? This way there is less hindrance for the high-level and low level characters.
You are not talking about expirienced players.
You talk about low skills.
Some times, yes I really run in a hurry if I am not along and some my friend need some thing very very much. But we try not to go random group in this condition. So it is possible but not to often.
But if I am alone - in random groups, I will not run before tanks and etc.
I can solo a lot of vDLC dunguans, but if I go with group I play normally.
I do not run before tank, if I respect the tank and he do not do some thing bad to me.
I do not give advices to other people, if they do not ask me about them, that abuse them. I just observe.
Looking what people will do. If they are toxic as exemple yesterday I just say them that they are low skill and leave. I do not go there for pledges. I go there for another reason.
But yes - meta man with no brain will always try to run before the group.
He think he is skilled. But he is not.
He is low skill.
Game experiense consist from different parts:
1) Do not die.
2) Work on situation.
3) Observe.
4) Fast do analize of situation. And predict.
5) Support the group. And healing.
6) Do damage.
7) Resurrect the group.
8) Communicate with different people.
9) Coordinate the group.
10) Some thing else.
If you do not know all this and only can do some thing one - it is low skill gaming.
It is not solo game.
I really ... am not good in number 8, so just try to only play with people I like.
I really do not like number 9, but can do with the people I like and who trust me.
But it is hard and put more responsiability on you. Good coordination is observe all actions off all the group.
Stuck on me - 7 meters back, stop DPS, go to save zone. 10 meters forward, do DPS, 2 meters left more, prepare for mechanick, barrier, and try to skip.
And it is BAD for people you play with.
They do not learn from this. So it can be only used very very limited number of times in really extream situations.
--- --- ---
Observe and predict skill is only possible to get by doing hard solo content.
Than you can get point 4 only in random groups.
--- --- ---
Support skill is only possible to get in really good groups. Where all people know what they are doing.
Or by analysing all other people skills and game play. And Game mechaniks.
--- --- ---
Is the player who run before group in easy dunguan skilled ?
No just dummy dps low skilled player with no understanding that a lot more thingth exist, and he only can do 1 small thing and nothing more, thats why he try to proof that this one little thing is the most important.
Just star fewer of low skilled not brained enough player.
Than more people like this -> than more they learn other people how to play - than more low skilled community of players you see. And less tanks in randoms.
If you see META - 100% a lot of toxic low skilled plyers in game, so just be prepared.
The same for a lot of game projects.
People can not think their own head = need META content.
And some low skilled guy talk about what is the best.
Best in what, to start with ?
Why ? Compared to what ?
For whom ?
And no answer.Edited by AyaDark on March 31, 2021 1:23PM0 -
GimpyPorcupine✭✭✭✭✭last night's vet pledges, I was on a Templar Tank, both non-DLC dungeons I got a high-CP healer and 2 low-CP dps. Got hard mode completes on both. Sure, it took longer, and we didn't get speed run or no-death (they didn't know mechanics) but hey, it worked out.8-hr/day casual on Xbox NA. 20 Characters, all DC, all Level 50. +2900CP0 -
Agenericname✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭If they want veteran players out of the easier content, where the lower level players typically are, then they need to add some incentive to vet content.
The random normal and random vet are the same. While this is the case, and especially since the update, players will take the path of least resistance. Its not only the transmutes now, but the XP as well.
At face value I wouldnt be in favor of many changes or modifications to the existing system that forced players to do anything. Providing additional incentives would leave that choice while making it more advantageous to do the harder stuff.Edited by Agenericname on March 31, 2021 1:31PM1 -
Iccotak✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭@AyaDark
I get what you are saying.
I guess a better way to phrase it is to find a way to even out the power levels in the group.
Your team mate may be an experienced player, with alts who make the gear, but at least they are closer to your power level and may find themself more inclined to be co-operative with their team mates.
Rather than a level 50 in the same dungeon instance as a level 19.
Sure group finder is supposed to be random for quick get together - but it should be noted that the current system does enable some poor behavior.
tbf I think it would be less of a problem if players could do the dungeon quest again, in case the missed out the first time due to rushers, just no skill point.
0 -
HyekAr✭✭✭I am looking for dungeon group the last 2 days, where is the group finder? how can I use it?
thnx0 -
amapola76✭✭✭✭✭
✭redspecter23 wrote: »The dungeon finder puts people together. It doesn't determine individual wants and needs.
It doesn't. But it could, perhaps. Which is, I think, what OP is requesting.
It's always curious to me when people respond to posts with, "The game doesn't do X because the game doesn't do X." No kidding! The conversation is about whether it could or should do some particular thing.0 -
kargen27✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭redspecter23 wrote: »The dungeon finder puts people together. It doesn't determine individual wants and needs.
It doesn't. But it could, perhaps. Which is, I think, what OP is requesting.
It's always curious to me when people respond to posts with, "The game doesn't do X because the game doesn't do X." No kidding! The conversation is about whether it could or should do some particular thing.
Queue times are already long. Dividing the queue into different groups of needs would make the wait much longer. I still think a good solution to one problem is creating a story mode instance for each dungeon. You get to do the quest and bosses are approximately as powerful as the random mini dolman things that spawn in overland so solo is easy. That way a player can enjoy the story not slowing others down then later join groups without worrying about missing dialog.
Rewards in the story mode would be minimal. Basically same as overland.and then the parrot said, "must be the water mines green too."0 -
Iccotak✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭redspecter23 wrote: »The dungeon finder puts people together. It doesn't determine individual wants and needs.
It doesn't. But it could, perhaps. Which is, I think, what OP is requesting.
It's always curious to me when people respond to posts with, "The game doesn't do X because the game doesn't do X." No kidding! The conversation is about whether it could or should do some particular thing.
Queue times are already long. Dividing the queue into different groups of needs would make the wait much longer. I still think a good solution to one problem is creating a story mode instance for each dungeon. You get to do the quest and bosses are approximately as powerful as the random mini dolman things that spawn in overland so solo is easy. That way a player can enjoy the story not slowing others down then later join groups without worrying about missing dialog.
Rewards in the story mode would be minimal. Basically same as overland.
ZOS has already made moves towards this with Companions, who would be adequate team mates for normal mode.
The idea being you can do a normal dungeon with a friend and 2 companions.
The next step (imo) would be to make the dungeon quests repeatable, with a daily reward from the quest giver - like a loot box with random item from a set in the dungeon.
I think that would solve the "Story Experience" issue.
but rushing is also an issue that pertains to rewards and participation. It is not just something that affects the story experience. People often complain about the lack of cooperation and overpowered character bombing a dungeon experience.
Hence why I proposed the idea of grouping players of similar level. A team mate may have better gear set-up but the playing field could be evened out when they are still around your level.
Putting the players in a position where they would be more inclined to cooperate. -which is what this is about.
How do you design a system that better puts players in a position to be inclined to cooperate?0 -
delphwind_ESO✭✭✭Group Finder is not the place to learn dungeons. It's simply a tool to find a group to run a dungeon. Nothing more, nothing less.
If anything expects anything beyond this, they are in for disappointment.
If your goal is to actually learn a dungeon, join a guild or make friends with the same goal. Don't expect three strangers from GF to do what you want to do.
The problem being that the group finder is often a New Player’s avenue for their first experience in dungeons.
This.
As a new player that's been trying to run dungeons over the last week while leveling, its just been one terrible experience after another. Honestly this is turning me away from this game more than anything else atm.0 -
Anonx31st✭✭✭Group Finder is not the place to learn dungeons. It's simply a tool to find a group to run a dungeon. Nothing more, nothing less.
If anything expects anything beyond this, they are in for disappointment.
If your goal is to actually learn a dungeon, join a guild or make friends with the same goal. Don't expect three strangers from GF to do what you want to do.
This. Higher geared/skilled players are wiping the floor because they want that daily dungeon xp reward and also they probably have multiple alts to do for the day.0 -
kargen27✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭redspecter23 wrote: »The dungeon finder puts people together. It doesn't determine individual wants and needs.
It doesn't. But it could, perhaps. Which is, I think, what OP is requesting.
It's always curious to me when people respond to posts with, "The game doesn't do X because the game doesn't do X." No kidding! The conversation is about whether it could or should do some particular thing.
Queue times are already long. Dividing the queue into different groups of needs would make the wait much longer. I still think a good solution to one problem is creating a story mode instance for each dungeon. You get to do the quest and bosses are approximately as powerful as the random mini dolman things that spawn in overland so solo is easy. That way a player can enjoy the story not slowing others down then later join groups without worrying about missing dialog.
Rewards in the story mode would be minimal. Basically same as overland.
ZOS has already made moves towards this with Companions, who would be adequate team mates for normal mode.
The idea being you can do a normal dungeon with a friend and 2 companions.
The next step (imo) would be to make the dungeon quests repeatable, with a daily reward from the quest giver - like a loot box with random item from a set in the dungeon.
I think that would solve the "Story Experience" issue.
but rushing is also an issue that pertains to rewards and participation. It is not just something that affects the story experience. People often complain about the lack of cooperation and overpowered character bombing a dungeon experience.
Hence why I proposed the idea of grouping players of similar level. A team mate may have better gear set-up but the playing field could be evened out when they are still around your level.
Putting the players in a position where they would be more inclined to cooperate. -which is what this is about.
How do you design a system that better puts players in a position to be inclined to cooperate?
I have a very unpopular suggestion that would fix some of this. Basically no skipping content in the dungeon. Every mob and every boss must be killed to get the reward. That would slow down those wanting to run to the end some.
Many people that want a story mode want to do more than just the quest given. They want to look in all the nooks and crannies. Take their time listening to the dialog then exploring around some before going to the next part of the story. Your idea would help some but I feel most players would activate the dialog then just burn through it without giving others a chance to read or listen. As is now if another member of the group accepts the quest before you've seen the dialog you are pretty much out of luck.
The problem I see with a story mode instance is that it creates an instance for that player. An instance that might be up for quite a while as the player roams around looking at things. I don't know if that would create server issues or not?
There are quite a few players who even with companions will not be able to complete a good number of the dungeons. They do like the stories though. Most don't even want/need a reward. They just want to enjoy the story. An overland level of difficulty instance of each dungeon would make these players very happy. Wouldn't hurt the queue any because they normally don't use the queue anyway.and then the parrot said, "must be the water mines green too."0 -
Anonx31st✭✭✭redspecter23 wrote: »The dungeon finder puts people together. It doesn't determine individual wants and needs.
It doesn't. But it could, perhaps. Which is, I think, what OP is requesting.
It's always curious to me when people respond to posts with, "The game doesn't do X because the game doesn't do X." No kidding! The conversation is about whether it could or should do some particular thing.
Queue times are already long. Dividing the queue into different groups of needs would make the wait much longer. I still think a good solution to one problem is creating a story mode instance for each dungeon. You get to do the quest and bosses are approximately as powerful as the random mini dolman things that spawn in overland so solo is easy. That way a player can enjoy the story not slowing others down then later join groups without worrying about missing dialog.
Rewards in the story mode would be minimal. Basically same as overland.
ZOS has already made moves towards this with Companions, who would be adequate team mates for normal mode.
The idea being you can do a normal dungeon with a friend and 2 companions.
The next step (imo) would be to make the dungeon quests repeatable, with a daily reward from the quest giver - like a loot box with random item from a set in the dungeon.
I think that would solve the "Story Experience" issue.
but rushing is also an issue that pertains to rewards and participation. It is not just something that affects the story experience. People often complain about the lack of cooperation and overpowered character bombing a dungeon experience.
Hence why I proposed the idea of grouping players of similar level. A team mate may have better gear set-up but the playing field could be evened out when they are still around your level.
Putting the players in a position where they would be more inclined to cooperate. -which is what this is about.
How do you design a system that better puts players in a position to be inclined to cooperate?
I have a very unpopular suggestion that would fix some of this. Basically no skipping content in the dungeon. Every mob and every boss must be killed to get the reward. That would slow down those wanting to run to the end some.
Many people that want a story mode want to do more than just the quest given. They want to look in all the nooks and crannies. Take their time listening to the dialog then exploring around some before going to the next part of the story. Your idea would help some but I feel most players would activate the dialog then just burn through it without giving others a chance to read or listen. As is now if another member of the group accepts the quest before you've seen the dialog you are pretty much out of luck.
The problem I see with a story mode instance is that it creates an instance for that player. An instance that might be up for quite a while as the player roams around looking at things. I don't know if that would create server issues or not?
There are quite a few players who even with companions will not be able to complete a good number of the dungeons. They do like the stories though. Most don't even want/need a reward. They just want to enjoy the story. An overland level of difficulty instance of each dungeon would make these players very happy. Wouldn't hurt the queue any because they normally don't use the queue anyway.
That's actually a good suggestion and probably isn't as popular overall than you think. It makes sense that all bosses should be killed to "complete" a daily dungeon.1 -
Few systems/processes can be perfect. I'm average experience (CP 800) and just did 1st run thru Fang Lair on vet HM in a PUG with couple newer players. Many deaths but manageable coaching opportunity. I create new toons just to farm 10 transmutes per dungeon in less than 5 minutes. My wife is CP 1300 and will group me in random queue, which is restricted to easy FG 1 or similar dungeons for new toons, and just blow through (unless someone needs help, which I ask at beginning). Rinse and repeat for each toon and get 120 mutes in an hour or so (not including queue times). Its cheaper to reconstruct monster sets/armor from sticker book using 25 mutes rather than spending 50 mutes just to change traits. It's all about play style and managing time!0
-
Araneae6537✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭If this is a problem for you, use the vet queue.
If you use groupfinder for a normal dungeon, you must be okay with being with players of lower level and/or ability. Be considerate at the least and if you are able to help, all the better.
0 -
SpiritKitten✭✭✭✭✭Only issue I have with group finder is if you’re a DD it’s takes forever to queue. If you’re a tank or a healer, instant pick up. Only issue I have with who I’m grouped with is fake tanks, fake healers. Like, tired of getting “healers” with bows shooting light attacks and acid spray and not actually playing the role they queued for. Or Tanks who are actually DD’s for pvp and no taunts. And lately, for whatever reason, DD’s using S&B.
You know, you call it an issue but for some reason last night (so like 12 hours ago Aus time) when I was running through all my 50+ toons for the normie rando XP, for one DPS the queue popped immediately, and for another within a minute and that was scary. What's going on with the queue if it's popping that quick on a DPS???
My favourite though, was on my full healer getting Moon Hunter Keep with a tank who was a werewolf which is the biggest red flag. Yes, I know there's a set they could wear but the word is "could" and they definitely weren't. That dungeon is painful enough even on normal without the "tank" not taunting and the bosses being dragged all over the place, or me constantly getting aggro because I'm the healer.
On the other hand, we burned the shapes boss so quickly I got a PS trophy for it, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Group Finder: it's always a mixed bag.
wait...this happened to me, maybe we were in the same group?0 -
Tantala✭✭✭I recently created a tank/dps hybrid hoping to get some tank experience despite the fact that my odd hours make regular grouping difficult. I had assumed (always a bad idea) that I would be able to get "low level" groups from the group finder. As it is I would feel bad if I went as a tank and couldn't function because the rest of the group were all CPxxx and I was level 20. Equally I don't want to simply leech experience by running as a low-level DPS and learning nothing about tanking.
There is a sub-50 campaign in Cyrodil. It would be nice if there were something similar in the group finder.0 -
ForzaRammer✭✭✭✭✭
✭ForzaRammer wrote: »allhailskippy wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »allhailskippy wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »allhailskippy wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »allhailskippy wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »allhailskippy wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »Zos’s spaghetti code is not even running smooth with this basic feature, op requested unnecessary features will negatively impact game performance.
If anything zos should remove random dungeon completely, just move the exp elsewhere, like pledge. This will not only stop people getting liar of massalork from que, and also reduce server load.
What player is like ‘oh please surprise me with a dungeon, I don’t even know what dungeon I want’?
Me? I like that.
Perfect, then randomly sample a dungeon name.
If you are too lazy to write 4 lines of code. Here is what zos can do.
Add something called random dungeon sampler, basically sort dungeon name alphabetically. Sample an integer in the index range. Display that name of dungeon at that index.
Then player can proceed to que that dungeon via specific que.
The benefit of doing random is that you potentially get paired with people who want to do specific dungeons. Filling roles they need to do that.
Me just putting in a single dungeon only matches me in the event that I happen to pick that specific dungeon.
I don't know if you've ever tried that for a specific dungeon, but the wait time is bad. Like. Really bad. Do not recommend.
So you are saying just because you qued just lair of massalork, 3 other people who happen to que random at same time, must do lair of massalork or waste 15 min.
On top of this, it also put more stress on the server.
Damn right people who qued LOM should be only matched with people who qued LOM.
Why? Random dungeon is just = don't care which dungeon. I definitely prefer something like Lair vs Fungal 1, but I'll take either when I chose random. That's the point of random.
So to you, a truly uniformly random selection is bad? But letting some dude who qued specific dungeon (thus pick the dungeon) at the same time as me queing random que is good?
What you like is not truly random index. It’s a constant value index that I am not shown.
I'm saying that I'd rather have a group get built. Using the GROUP FINDER than wait forever because you don't like LOM.
Do you want increased wait times? Because that's how you increase wait times.
What increased wait times? Certainly not for FG1.ForzaRammer wrote: »allhailskippy wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »allhailskippy wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »On top of this, it also put more stress on the server.
You're gonna have to back that one up.
Before i explain, i must ask, do you code at all? I am mediocre at best on coding, but i understand how simple que works, and only remove from the head the que is less computation than allowing removing from middle of the que.
Yup. Professionally.
Please also factor 3 distinct roles in your queue explanation.
And the fact that there are 20 something dungeons to select from.
Essentially my solution is 6 simply que for each dungeon, 2 for each role, low prio and high prio, no cross check between different dungeon, only check if que is empty with in same dungeon. To encourage behaviour lower ram usage, only allowing que 1 dungeon at a time, player can sit in more than 1, but pre ready check check should be auto fail.
On your screen you can see if you are qued, which means server is already tracking it. When a player que a dungeon, an obj is added to a the end of the low prio que based on role, check the other 5 que. If at least 1 que for all 3 role is non empty, select the first element in que, high prio over low prio.
Player who ready checked but did not join dungeon is moved to the back of high prio que. player who failed ready check is not in that que anymore. No need to remove player from the middle of anyque, simply auto fail the ready check when 1 of the player status does not meet requirements.
Tell me, how exactly can the current system not do cross check between different dungeons?
So your solution is to let players only
1. Select only one dungeon
2. Wait until 3 other people have also selected said dungeon
3. Field infinite amounts of anger generated by these 2 decisions.
How about this?
Do what you suggested, but instead also have a "I'll play whatever" queue. That will fill these empty spots quickly instead of waiting for hours for your 4th dps to show up. Maybe call it... "Random Dungeon" queue or something like that.
By taking that queue away, you increase wait times.
Regardless of the actual mechanics of how the dungeon finder actually work. Your suggestions will by their nature make it more difficult to match with people. And I'm certain that this system is far more complex than you might think, because if there was a "simple fix" they'd have done it by now.
It’s by design to make it harder to match for LOM to achieve performance gain, as well as stop people who specifically que it waste my time.
Remove features completely is a great way reduce computation. Select only 1 dungeon is perfect fine for those who just want to do the pledge dungeon anyways.
A feature work to my disadvantage is a feature I advocate to remove.
Wait, why should other people be punished just because YOU don't want to run [one specific dungeon]?
Why don't YOU just queue for specific dungeons in that case instead of wanting everyone else to be punished for a feature you don't even have to use?
The exp reward is tied to ‘random’, pretty sure I mentioned earlier in the thread already. Just move the xp to pledge will do for me0 -
ForzaRammer✭✭✭✭✭
✭ForzaRammer wrote: »allhailskippy wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »allhailskippy wrote: »ForzaRammer wrote: »Zos’s spaghetti code is not even running smooth with this basic feature, op requested unnecessary features will negatively impact game performance.
If anything zos should remove random dungeon completely, just move the exp elsewhere, like pledge. This will not only stop people getting liar of massalork from que, and also reduce server load.
What player is like ‘oh please surprise me with a dungeon, I don’t even know what dungeon I want’?
Me? I like that.
Perfect, then randomly sample a dungeon name.
If you are too lazy to write 4 lines of code. Here is what zos can do.
Add something called random dungeon sampler, basically sort dungeon name alphabetically. Sample an integer in the index range. Display that name of dungeon at that index.
Then player can proceed to que that dungeon via specific que.
The benefit of doing random is that you potentially get paired with people who want to do specific dungeons. Filling roles they need to do that.
Me just putting in a single dungeon only matches me in the event that I happen to pick that specific dungeon.
I don't know if you've ever tried that for a specific dungeon, but the wait time is bad. Like. Really bad. Do not recommend.
So you are saying just because you qued just lair of massalork, 3 other people who happen to que random at same time, must do lair of massalork or waste 15 min.
On top of this, it also put more stress on the server.
Damn right people who qued LOM should be only matched with people who qued LOM.
How does it put more stress on the server? And I am guessing from some of my wait times doing specific dungeons I don't get moved to the top because I selected a specific dungeon.
The random is there to fill groups for players who want a specific dungeon. Take away that feature and there is no reason to have a random queue.
Less memory needed for queue, because players can not be in multiple queue at same time.
Also less que push and pop, so less compute.0 -
AvalonRanger✭✭✭✭✭
✭>When I met very amateur looking player in normal run, I thought 3 possibility.
1, Non veteran level player who has high CP (Veteran player made new character).
2, Real new amateur player who start ESO just from 3 month ago.
3, Fake role cheater player or bot.
>Sometimes I ask against team mate about skipping secret sub boss when I 'm tank character.
1, "Yea" or "sure" > then I ignore sub boss. Go speed running (But I taunt every enemy on the road very rapidly).
2, No answer > Ignore. main boss only.
3, I want every secret boss. > If 1more team mate accept it, I'll join it as the tank.
My playing time Mon-Friday UTC13:00-16:00 [PC-NA] CP over2000 now.
I'm Tank and Healer main player.1