No Cross Realm LFG tool please!

Well the issues finding a group with or without LFG can be relative.

A small example counting 10 east servers, with average of players in roles

5 tanks (avg) x 10 servers = 50 tanks
4 healers (avg) x 10 servers = 40 healers
60 dps (avg) x 10 servers = 600 dps / 2 per group = 300 dps

So if you are not a tank or healer, you will have to wait, and wait a lot.

This is actually a good point. The amount of time reduced because of cross server tools versus single server tools may just be an eye-of-the-beholder thing. A group only need 4 people to fill it, 40 people queuing can fill a 4 man group as quick as 400 people queueing. Especially if everyone gets in the back of the line for their group.

The only thing that reduces queue times is if people are willing and able to do the critical healer/tank roles more often compared to just queueing as a DPS.

Example: In WoW, if I queued my Mage I always had a long queue time unless if I queued with a tank or healer friend. If I queued on my Warrior tank I always had a short queue time, even if sometimes I got put into a group as DPS.

What we need by the time LFG tools come out is dual specs though, so you can switch between DPS and critical role spec more easilly if needed.


I am still interested in how average queue times relate towards each other with a larger group of people queueing compared to a smaller group (so single server or X-server) and would love to see someone take the time to work it out statistically. (so no: in Rift queue times dropped when they went X-server kind of personal experience.. but real, statistical coverage of reduced queue times.. both on averages as well as what the longest and shortest queue times are in similar situations)

I'll have to wait less, on average, than I would without cross server. (edit: personally, it's significantly less, since I'm a tank)

Your numbers don't actually make sense for looking at this problem... you're looking at static numbers of people (which are made up to boot), which isn't how a queuing system works. Queues are all about rates of people entering the queue.

if you actually look at an example with multiple queues vs single queue, you'll see that the average time to form a group in a single queue system is lower than the the multiqueue system.

The game is really not designed for a cross server LFG tool and i believe that it shouldnt be implemented.

The game is still in its infancy and already people are complaning that this game is a WoW clone and that bioware needs to stop doing things WoW does. yet at the same time those same people are wanting a cross server LFG tool that WoW has. For those that remember playing WoW before the cross server LFG tool, try to remember back when you could find a group on the same server that you were on. Conversations started and friends were made. Once the cross server LFG tool came about, the conversations stopped. I can count on one hand how many times other players ever talked to each other. Their mindset was...."well im not going to be grouped with them again so why bother talking". Oh lets not forget the favorite of everyone. "oh no hes a fresh (place capped level here), im not sticking around for some n00b to wipe us over and over again"


Now if you want to get into specifics. then hows this. With the current trees that there are. how would you group it up? A sage and a commando is not always a healer. yet you know as well as i do that people will queue up as the healer just so that they can get into a group faster. For those that played WoW...how long was your wait time when you queue'd up as DPS? I personally saw it at an hour some days. yet i jump on my healer or tank...BAM right into it. I was also in groups where people would queue up as healer and not have one item or talent as healer. Sure they had a heal..but didnt know what it was for or how to use it.

Now lets get to another reason. The ever elusive ninja/a-hole that love to ruin your playtime to get their jollies off. Rolling Need on every single item so that they could sell or gear up alts or companions or alts companions..ECT ECT ECT. how about that wonderful tank that just pulls and pulls and pulls and yells hurry hurry hurry. then gripes and complains that people are dying and hes not getting healed, the healer gets yelled at and blamed, and he pulls a large mob or boss then quits the groups and ports out.


Now yes the above 2 you could find on your server now probably...but the thing is. Its on your server. you can warn others...add that person to ignore and never have to worry about them. Cross server LFG....chance are you wont see them again, but at the same time they are going to do the same thing to someone else.




I could condone a same server LFG option, but not cross server.

Hahaha.. thank you for answering my question so quickly!

What your point misses though is the edge-cases. Averages only count statistically. But how often is the queue time very long (or very short) in multiqueue vs single queue situations.

This is especially important for DPS players because they are those that always feel the longer queue times more.

I really don't see how people can argue against cross-realm lfg and at the same time argue for cross-realm pvp. If the argument is that it takes too long to queue for pvp, where it will pretty much throw the first 16 players it finds together, consider finding groups for FP's where you need a specific party composition. It really just seems like people are trying to keep their "special snowflake" status and dressing it up as concern for the community, which on top of being silly is also counterproductive to these conversations.

I just don't think I'll ever be at a point where I find myself more entertained by spamming chat looking for a group for 30-60 minutes, when I could be questing and letting the game find my group for me and most likely in less time.

I wonder what the reaction would be if they set aside certain servers that wouldn't be a part of cross server lfg. The idea being that if you don't want to have it, there's a server you can go to get away from it. It's not so much different from pvp vs pve or rp vs non-rp servers. It's probably not something that would ever happen, but they could offer transfers to the server style of your choice (although I have a feeling, despite the thousands of threads asking for server transfers and merging that suddenly people will be up in arms about changing servers).

Can you actually point out people who are complaining about this being a wow clone and also who are in favor of cross server lfg?

I mean, I think you're making this one up...

Yeah, I remember that; it was about the same as it was after lfg, just less groups and more waiting.


similar system to the way rift does it: you qualify as a healer if you have x points invested in the healing tree; same for tanks and dps. This is kind of a solved problem.


These people existed in EQ. These people existed in wow before lfg. These people existed in rift before lfg. These people exist in swtor now.

They're not all that common, but they aren't any more common in wow with cross server lfg either.

This is also just as true cross server

This is also the case single server. I could cite dozens of people who were on the Piece of Monkey **** list on my EQ server who remained in guilds, along with people who didn't make the list but were still well known for training, camp jumping and kill stealing (including a couple in the top couple of raid guilds on my server).

No, it covers the edge cases. Lower averages mean either less edge cases, or lower average edge case wait times.

certainly; they'll have a longer queue time than tanks. Just like in wow, they'll have to wait ~10-15 minutes instead of instant or near instant (healers/tanks)

That was one of my points with my numbers, the DPS gonna have to wait a lot, the tanks and healers can reroll group almost instantly.

Also one person said that this game wasn't designed for LFG, well neither was WOW. In some ways it worked, in some not, and harmed others (world pvp).

Not necessarily. A shame I cannot draw it out for you, but lower averages only means the average time is lower.

Simple example:

20 numbers, range from 1 to 100: 1 1 1 1 1 25 25 25 50 50 50 50 50 75 75 100 100 100 100 100. Average is 49 in this range, minimum is 1, maximum is 100.

4 numbers, range 1 to 100: 40 50 50 60: average is 50, minimum is 40, maximum is 60.

The higher average creates a lower maximum number.

It has been too long since I've done statistics in school, but I do remember the fact that lower averages only equals lower averages. It does not mean the edge cases occur less or that the edge wait times are less than the one with higher average. It only means the average of the cases is less, not that the edge cases themselves are actually higher or lower.

As I admit, I am rusty on the matter and have not had any time to delve into the specifics of queues (where, unlike in a random number range, an earlier result does affect a later result), but it is not as clearcut as lower average means lower/less edge cases.