LFG Addon - an extensive look (it’s very bad!)

I don’t even know what that means. It’s a video of MrGM testing the addon on the Retail PTR and telling us about it’s features and why it’s not good for Classic. Nothing fake about it.

It’s a video showing an older version of the addon, not the one that will be changed and ready by Monday, as the author stated.

It’s meant to deceive you, and it worked.

1 Like

The only person here who is deceived for buying into it and believing this won’t have a massive negative impact on the community. Blizzard intentionally removed this functionality for the Classic client. The addon has a lot of features like the LFG in Retail and that was removed for a reason.

I can’t even - you people don’t understand how APIs work. You just see the letters “LFG” and yell that the sky is falling without an inkling of an understanding of how it works.

Really ? How ? Classic is a static game. LUA won’t be changing, content won’t be changing, player skills/talents won’t be changing.

Let me put it this way - even if they removed all functionality from the addon except the bulletin board feature, that’s still too much. They could remove the chat spam, auto grouping, talents (both of which they said they would but that’s TBD), the custom group maker that doesn’t spam chat and communicates with other users of the addon, etc. All could be removed for merely a bulletin board listing and it’s still too much.

Retail has a bulletin board style custom group maker - Blizzard intentionally removed that functionality from the Classic client because they believed it would have a negative impact on the social experience and was against the spirit of Classic.

I hate to be that person, but if you can’t be arsed to talk to other people to form a group, then Classic is not for you.

Uh,no. Are you saying that Monday’s version will be the same version we play a week, a month, a year from now?

Come. On.

Bug fixes but no changes to the underlying game.

You know this? You work for Blizz

I am going to make a LFG discord bot so if this gets broken at least there will be something to replace it…

i bit sad blizzard give any update about this issue ,big let down to me
i feel blizzard want classic to fail for retail

with all the threads popping up against the add on, I think they will be forced to address it soon.

2 Likes

Come on man your last hate post didn’t even leave the first page of the forums yet. Can’t you just wait and see. If Blizzard was going to do something they already have more than enough information about your opinion on it.

This didn’t need another thread. You could have posted this in the multiple threads you’ve already made.

I am going to just assume you did not play Vanilla based on this post and opposition. With that being said the functionality and intent of anything based around a tool and or feature being used in classic wow will destroy the overall goal put in place.

AN AUTHENTIC WOW CLASSIC EXPERIENCE

If this goes in then even people that want a LFG tool or addon will suffer as it kills the population even faster.

You can check my achievements. I’m currently laughing at you.

While hiding behind a level 12.
Do you see the irony in that ?

Nope. I want to use THIS nickname without having to make it level 120.

I really don’t care what you think, my achievements show what they need to show.

Clarify this bit, please. It will post the spec of the person using it, or it will tell them the specs of people who aren’t using it?

One is fine if someone wants to overshare, automatedly or otherwise; it’ll make me less likely to invite them if I’m forming the group, but that’s their business. The other would involve seriously invasive datamining for Classic.

It parses your talent tree and puts you in a role…dps, heal, tank based on the highest tree.

So my 20/31/0 pally gets pigeonholed as a TANK even though I can heal fine.
My spriest gets pigeonholed as DPS even though I can heal fine.

But what happens if my 20/31/0 pally answers a call for LFM heals ? Will that add-on reject me ?

That add-on is not taking into account that in vanilla classes could have multiple roles.