FIX LOG IN QUE TIMES!
Why/how can Eve Online do it but you can’t?
Not enough skill? (Hire me)
Not enough money? I pay for a monthly subscription and auto lvl 59/70 toons!
Get your stuff together
Thanks for the feedback.
When are you updating the 2005 servers so we can play the game to see what your feedback is about?
1 Like
Any word on what is in the works to fix the overpopulation issues on servers like benediction? free transfers to dead servers won’t work without some assurance we are going to have a healthy alliance or horde on the server we play on, along with having as close to even ratio of alliance to horde.
Radio silence so far.
Blizzard is making millions and just sipping their breast milk in the office.
On benediction alone, an average of $135,000 worth of subscribers per night are stuck in queue at any given time.
It’s disgusting.
2 Likes
World of Waitcraft…
Blizzard, why did you allow my guild to pay transfer to Faerlina back in Phase 2 if you were concerned with server population size?
Did server population size just become a problem? Why did you allow the servers to become overpopulated by 1,000s of players? This is ridiculous.
tHaT’s WhAt yOu GeT fOr NoT pLaYiNg On A dEaD sErVeR.
If you buff Ulduar to 251, it will completely trivialize the content.
if you buff the content hp to 251, you will kill Ulduar pug community.
Just leave it alone.
1 Like
Look at you, all up in here rubbing it in people’s faces that team Blizz is doing something you like, while all thinking anyone with common sense actually cares about what you want. Anytime you want to throw your hat into the “Blizz has never walked back a decision” ring, you let me know, and I’ll referee your loss. LMAO
6 Likes
Blizzard, I don’t know how to reach someone about this, but I truly believe your logic regarding the RDF tool is flawed. Please, please read this. I do think it would be better in the long run especially for imbalanced or small servers.
Tl;dr: LFG tool does not address all of the issues the RDF was excellent at fixing, and in its present implementation actively harms the social aspect it is supposed to be helping preserve. Here are my suggestions for compromising:
1. Keep the LFG tool and require its use to join LFG chat. (After fixing all of its current bugs). It is still useful for forming groups for non-dungeon content, or even organizing community events.
2. Add another global channel purely for community chat, or extend the trade chat to be outside the cities.
3. Add RDF back into the game, but with some changes which could include the following:
-
Only implement it for levels 1-70
OR - Remove all non-experience bonus rewards from using RDF
- Buff gold and/or item drop rates in dungeons organized without RDF
- Only allow RDF to pull from the local battlegroup used for PvP (if it did not already do this)
Actual Post:
I will admit I have always been in favor of the inclusion of RDF in Wrath Classic, and vocally so on my main server. However, prior to the pre-patch I resolved to give the LFG tool a fair shake. Having been playing on the fresh pve server the last few days here is my honest feedback:
Before considering more specific points it is necessary to discuss the broader issue of why the LFG is desired over RDF by Blizzard. Based on what I have read the majority of concern seems to be preserving the social aspect of the game. A lot of the people who are against RDF seem to think of it as a turning point in Wow’s development philosophy that ultimately hurt the game. I do not deny this. But consider that RDF may not itself have been harmful to the game - rather that the motivations for implementing it would become harmful when taken further. Perhaps it was not RDF that ruined the social aspec, but the RDF-style systems that were implemented in later expansions.
In theory the LFG tool would have supported the social aspect of the game while making dungeons easier to run, however its current implementation seems to be counter-productive in that regard. Whether Blizzard realizes this or not, the people who play the game have evolved since original Wrath, every server I surveyed in TBC classic used existing global channels as a server-wide chat. On larger servers this becomes an issue when channels like LookingforGroup become spammed with so many communications that one cannot hope to read it all, but on smaller servers these channels were essential to building a sense of community and server identity where there may not actually be a lot of people in a given zone. There is something to be said for keeping LookingforGroup restricted to its stated purpose, but if that is to be enforced, as I have seen some evidence to suggest it is, then the addition of another global channel specifically for chat would necessarily be required to support Blizzard’s stated intention of promoting the social aspect of the game - as isolating people from each other would be antithetical to that goal.
The other main consideration in this discussion is one that I would consider an ethical issue regarding player engagement with an MMORPG. One of the main selling points of an MMORPG, at least for a majority of the people I have spoken with on this issue, is that there is a lot of content for people, and each player can engage with that content on their own terms. I do not have to play PvP if I don’t want to, people do not have to kill the raid boss, or run dungeons, or get Loremaster if they do not want to. The issue, then, becomes parity of reward for engaging in content by tailoing the reward for that engagement to the type of player who would engage with it in the first place. One excellent example of this in the game is PvP rewards - They are great rewards for people who want to PvP, but if I choose not to I don’t necessarily feel like I’m missing out since the vast majority of the rewards would not be useful for the way I want to play. In its original implementation I would agree that RDF was harmful to this reward balance, as the incentives for using it were too good for anyone wanting to run PvE to not use it - regardless of whether they wanted to run dungeons or not. I get why this was done initially - it was a new system and they wanted people to have an incentive to try it out, but it became harmful to leave the rewards in in my opinion.
The ethical issue, to me at least, is whether or not to remove someone’s way of engaging with the game. There are two communities here - those who want the RDF and those that do not. If the RDF is included, but without incentive to use it, then theoretically those who do not wish to use it will still be able to engage with the game their way. If it is left out, however, those who wish to use RDF as their preferred way to play will not be able to engage their way. It boils down to - include RDF and nobody is denied their playstyle, remove it and a plurality (at least) of the players are denied their playstyle. If including it in the right way would, theoretically, not harm anyone then why keep it out of the game?
If I may pull an example from another game - GW2 has a gameplay system called Jumping Puzzles. Very few people engage with these on a consisent basis, and I would suspect the majority of the people would not even notice if they were removed altogether. Still, GW2 has typically released at least new jumping puzzles on a regular basis. The rewards for completing them are not usually good enough to incentivize players to do the content, as the developers seem to understand the motivaton for the players who do them regularly is the completion itself, not the reward at the end. The lesson to be learned here is that the key to a successful gameplay system is to reward people proportionally according to their motivations, and doing so successfully should allow multiple competing gameplay styles to co-exist without a too much friction.
Another thing that may not have been considered is how RDF affected the leveling process for new players or players leveling alts. With the current state of many of the servers, which I do not expect them to find a solution for, the fact is there have been many times when people have wanted to run low-level dungeons and have been unable to find a group. This can be for a variety of reasons but the most common I have seen are: 1) The dungeon is not an “efficient” one for your factions and therefore not optimal for people wanting to level - very few alliance players will run Wailing Caverns, and very few Horde will run Deadmines simply because they are out of the way. or 2) Much more likely on smaller servers, in my experience, is that there may not even be enough players on that server with a character at that level to run a dungeon regardless of which one it is. Even on moderately sized servers finding a pool of people at the right level with the right specs and desire to run, say, Zul’Farrak is nearly impossible. I cannot tell you how many times I have gotten 4/5 players and spent 2-3 hours looking for the last one, and if we do eventually find the last player, the evening is wasted and 2 of the other players have to back out because it took too long to get the group together.
Before the nerfs to boosting a friendly guild member could be nice and run you through for quests to complete. My friend and I used to run a sevice wherein the two of use could use broken combos to 3 or 4 man dungeons at our level to help out the poor dps looking for a group - but the boosting nerfs ended our ability to do that as well. The fact is, without RDF many of the really fun older dungeons will not see a lot of play, existing players will be less likely to create alts, and new players will be more likely to encounter discouraging experiences where there are dungeons or quests they are simply unable to complete.
Since this response is already getting super long here is my suggestion for compromising on this issue:
- Keep the LFG tool and require its use to join LFG chat. (After fixing all of its current bugs). It is still useful for forming groups for non-dungeon content, or even organizing community events.
- Add another global channel purely for community chat, or extend the trade chat to be outside the cities.
- Add RDF back into the game, but with some changes which could include the following:
- Only implement it for levels 1-70
OR - Remove all non-experience bonus rewards from using RDF
- Buff gold and/or item drop rates in dungeons organized without RDF
- Only allow RDF to pull from the local battlegroup used for PvP (if it did not already do this)
I believe implementing these changes would allow both people who want to use RDF for the convenience/leveling and people who want to form dungeons normally to feel adequately rewarded for doing content their way, without feeling expected to do one or the other.
5 Likes
WOTLK had rdf and it was such a popular addition, it has been in every expansion since. Notice Blizz didn’t remove it from retail.
15 Likes
Fix the god damn servers jesus - none of this other stuff matters if we can’t even play the game
4 Likes
The LFG tool is exactly as i expected…useless. I still find groups faster using GBB lol. Just get rid of it, and put in the retail one if you want to die on the “no RDF” hill. At least that one is usable.
4 Likes
I only read the tl;dr but I would be pleased with any and all of those changes if that meant we still got the automated matchmaking from RDF.
When RDF was first implemented once upon a time it was battlegroup exclusive. At some point (I don’t remember when) it was opened up to all realms, I assume to minimize time waiting in the queue.
Right now some servers have higher populations than the battle groups of old. And I don’t believe there are battlegroup designations as such in classic. It would require some actual thought and effort but I believe someone at Blizzard could separate the mega servers so that they could have server-only RDF and group up the smaller servers into some logical clusters. I don’t think you’d lose as much “server-identity” if you were going to be grouped with the same 3 or 4 servers consistently.
1 Like
I applaud you for doubling down and being one of the most toxic posters here. You ARE literally trying to “rile up” people while rubbing it in their faces that YOU are getting what YOU want. 
6 Likes
I experience All the dungeons without the trash of rdf, though.
1 Like
Oh, look, subjective toxic opinion about a feature that isn’t required to do end game content with no real explanation of what defines “trash”. Neat.
2 Likes
So i didnt post what i said out of the blue, like youre trying to imply here. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. If youre gonna be toxic and scream at people to leave a game, be prepared to be reminded of the truth of whats actually going on in your situation.
This:
Is an appropriate, and ironic, response to this:
And if you think it’s not, its because you are clearly skewed in your sobbing and scratching about deserving RDF.
1 Like
Not for nothing, but you do realize if RDF was implemented, the anti RDF crowd would not need to use it. You really have ZERO argument. It wouldn’t effect you at all. You are just being selfish at best.
5 Likes
Depending on the implementation.
You can scream this until youre blue in the face, we do, and ignoring it is doing you no favors.
This is a lie, and not a very good one. If you *actually want the feature youd drop the gross entitlement and come talking about how you can fix the problems with implementation, that you choose to willfully ignore, and youre losing ignoring them.