Dungeon Finder Needed Badly

"Cons" are in the eye of the beholder. The only con I see in your list is Ninja looting for me. The others are Pro's, as you can possibly do the good community member thing and help the under geared player, or tech the player group concepts, etc. But we all know the reality of the "Community" argument.

Heh...

Hypocrit much?

I can do that too.

Pros: Experience content you're paying for
Don't have to break from the levelling process to sit in Fleet asking for a group.
If someone has to leave the group during a FP, whether it be by their choice or others, it's far easier to replace them and continue on.
More players will experience the Flashpoints and therefore will have a better understanding of how to act and play as part of a group.
Players on dead servers will no longer feel like they're alone in the game.

Cons: More likely to run into a bad player, which is just to do with statistics rather than evil magic LFG tool!

Oh look the Pros outweigh the cons for me!

Well you've just defeated your own argument there.

I think an important part of any dungeon finder is to make it in-server. I'm not a big socializer, but when I do dungeons, I talk to people. Makes it easier to make friends in-game and makes in *much* easier to find a guild that suits you. Some people in "dead" servers might not like this, but I think it's important.

I'm also wondering why content nerf would be part of it? Dungeons would be easier because you would easily find a healer, tank ad DPS, and not just have to make do with what you can find.

So an option for Single Server or Cross Server searching would be best. That way you can still group with people from your own server, and those on dead servers will be able to find a group a lot easier.

Perfect idea :D

The argument doesn't become invalid because it has been used before. The problem of finding groups is composed of two component problems. The first is a combination of the clunkiness of the existing method of finding a group combined with player perception that LFG requires sitting around on the Fleet. The second is there are too many servers with light populations that exacerbate this situation. Both need to be fixed.

Ideally any fix should maximize the opportunities to get any kind of group, not just flashpoints. While I understand and appreciate that is what you want to do, not everyone is so single-minded about it. I want a tool that helps me do everything: instanced and non-instanced group content. Even someone who refuses to believe the "horror stories" can surely admit that cross-server LFG won't help with doing Heroics. It would solve part of the problem, but even discounting the downsides the rest of us anti-XLFG people keep bringing up surely we can agree the best solution would be something that maximizes everyone's chances to get ALL kinds of groups, not just flashpoints.

On a server with a healthy population a single-server tool would help with getting any kind of group - so the problem is what to do about low-population servers. The answer here still hasn't changed: server merges and transfers. Fortunately we know that Bioware is discussing this issue and they are concerned with it. We also know that server transfer tech is in-place for the APAC servers and they are actively working out the bugs with it now. It is simply a matter of time before they start offering transfers in an effort to balance out server populations and if that doesn't work then I am quite certain merges wouldn't be far behind.

This is the better approach. It takes care of the grouping situation without ignoring one entire class of group missions. It helps players find groups in a way that facilitates the formation of friendships via repeatedly grouping together; as a corallary it also helps finding a guild (group with a good unguilded player and its easy to invite them - they can't be from any other server than your own).

Again, I realize that low-population servers suck and trying to find a group can be challenging even on a high-population server. It may very well be that a cross-server tool is truly needed, but I would much rather try the BEST solution first and then if that doesn't work we can take the second-best solution and implement it in a way that avoids the mistakes of prior systems (which requires a fair bit more tech than just putting people in a flashpoint together).

It feels that we came to a head on that discussion, and then out of nowhere you decided to repeat everything again?

Does this mean you acknowledge the validity of the point that a cross-server tool would be, at best, sub-par as a solution?

We have differing opinions on the merits and problems of a cross-server tool, but the fact that such a tool will only address a limited section of possible group content is not a matter of opinion - it is a matter of fact. It can only address content that is 100% instanced and even assuming that either every drawback or fear we anti-XLFG folks have is ridiculous and false it still doesn't allow a cross-server tool to work for non-instanced content. Meaning as a fix for a low-population server it fails.

No I disagree on that, but we had came to an agreement of how it could be best created. I thought that was us coming to an understanding and compromise.