* The /lfg flag vs. "/shout Looking for group"
Starman
After playing the game for a while, and yes I DO read the patch
messages, I've never seen this happen until last night. I'm in NK early
and my usual group members weren't around. I did a "/shout 16 druid
looking for group". One b*tch /shouted "Please stop publically asking
for groups. Use the /lfg flag. You're annoying the rest of us".
/lfg flag? I must have missed it.
The funny part is that immediately after that, almost everyone in NK
/shouted "looking for group" just to piss her off.
Now, she's probably right...the /lfg flag was created to keep the noise
down. She was NOT right in her obnoxious behavior. Anyway, which do you
prefer? Someone pointed out that people like /shouts better since you
can be more specific if need be. I prefer the /shouts cuz that saves me
from doing a /who lfg all the time.
Thoughts?
Mike
--
ICQ: 6426785
AOL IM: StarmanTHX
UT stats: Starman - 385187
EQ: Talisaar - Level 17 druid - Xegony server
Lokari
>I did a "/shout 16 druid looking for group". One b*tch
>/shouted "Please stop publically asking for groups.
>Use the /lfg flag. You're annoying the rest of us".
I think "bitch" may be too kind. I'm glad that the zone took her to
task for it.
>/lfg flag? I must have missed it.
It was in one of the last few weeks' patches.
>Now, she's probably right...the /lfg flag was created to keep the noise
>down.
I'd say it was created more to assist people in hooking up. One of the
long-time complaints about EQ is that it favors the hardcore gamer
over the casual player. The /lfg flag gives casual gamers a bit of a
boost by helping them find a group more easily.
>which do you prefer? Someone pointed out that people like /shouts
>better since you can be more specific if need be. I prefer the
>/shouts cuz that saves me from doing a /who lfg all the time.
Both used in conjunction. The important thing is to get into the game
and *play*, and anything that lets that happen faster is a good thing.
--
www.enteract.com/~lokari
"No one of consequence"
Carlo Mosca
and keep LFG on.
So far the only response I've had to the flag itself is a joking agreement
to group from a friend on the other side of the world.
Bert Ulrich
think it will take some time before folks become fully acclimated to it.
I'm not certain if everyone uses it to its full effectiveness. For example,
if I wanted to search the world for all magicians looking for a group
between the levels of 45 and 50 (inclusive) I would type /who all magician
45 50 lfg
If I was just searching my current zone I would remove the 'all'
That gets slightly technical I think for most folks, but it works for me.
Aamen Palantir
Fennin Ro
--
"Your foes seem endless, their tales unknown."
Starman <sta...@iamdigex.net> wrote in message
news:starman-9405B0...@news.iamdigex.net...
> Hi all,
> After playing the game for a while, and yes I DO read the patch
> messages, I've never seen this happen until last night. I'm in NK early
> and my usual group members weren't around. I did a "/shout 16 druid
> looking for group". One b*tch /shouted "Please stop publically asking
> for groups. Use the /lfg flag. You're annoying the rest of us".
>
> /lfg flag? I must have missed it.
>
> The funny part is that immediately after that, almost everyone in NK
> /shouted "looking for group" just to piss her off.
>
> Now, she's probably right...the /lfg flag was created to keep the noise
> down. She was NOT right in her obnoxious behavior. Anyway, which do you
> prefer? Someone pointed out that people like /shouts better since you
> can be more specific if need be. I prefer the /shouts cuz that saves me
> from doing a /who lfg all the time.
>
Hansel
group up, and their /lfg flags go down. A third person enters the
zone, and turns on their lfg flag. And waits. The group (wanting
more people), is waiting for someone to /ooc Looking for a group, and
the 3rd person is waiting for the group to initiate the communication.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:20:39 -0500, Lokari <lok...@mediaone.net>
wrote:
>Starman <sta...@iamdigex.net> wrote:
>
>>I did a "/shout 16 druid looking for group". One b*tch
>>/shouted "Please stop publically asking for groups.
>>Use the /lfg flag. You're annoying the rest of us".
Hansel & Gretel Gingerbread
Druid and Warrior Halfling Duo
Terris-Thule
Steph
using it. For the most part, it's the same'ol shouting. I think once people
get used to it though, it'll help allot.
One of the things I've noticed though is that people use /lfg when they're
/anon. Doesn't help allot. :)
It'll catch on though, eventually, and I think it'll be great to cut down on
the shouts.
~Me
"Starman" <sta...@iamdigex.net> wrote in message
news:starman-9405B0...@news.iamdigex.net...
> Hi all,
> After playing the game for a while, and yes I DO read the patch
> messages, I've never seen this happen until last night. I'm in NK early
> and my usual group members weren't around. I did a "/shout 16 druid
> looking for group". One b*tch /shouted "Please stop publically asking
> for groups. Use the /lfg flag. You're annoying the rest of us".
>
Jim
wrote:
>Hi all,
> After playing the game for a while, and yes I DO read the patch
>messages, I've never seen this happen until last night. I'm in NK early
>and my usual group members weren't around. I did a "/shout 16 druid
>looking for group". One b*tch /shouted "Please stop publically asking
>for groups. Use the /lfg flag. You're annoying the rest of us".
Ignore the in-game pseudo-police. Their lives are filled with such
misery and torment that they feel the need to bother people in-game to
boost their frail egos. Have pity on them.
>/lfg flag? I must have missed it.
>
>The funny part is that immediately after that, almost everyone in NK
>/shouted "looking for group" just to piss her off.
>
>Now, she's probably right...the /lfg flag was created to keep the noise
>down. She was NOT right in her obnoxious behavior. Anyway, which do you
>prefer? Someone pointed out that people like /shouts better since you
>can be more specific if need be. I prefer the /shouts cuz that saves me
>from doing a /who lfg all the time.
>
>Thoughts?
My thoughts are the following: do whatever you want.
Darrell W. Jackson
never get anyone to say anything to me until I broadcast with a /shout that
I am looking for a group. Might be a nice feature but it is want that
doesn't get used.
"Starman" <sta...@iamdigex.net> wrote in message
news:starman-9405B0...@news.iamdigex.net...
> Hi all,
> After playing the game for a while, and yes I DO read the patch
> messages, I've never seen this happen until last night. I'm in NK early
> and my usual group members weren't around. I did a "/shout 16 druid
> looking for group". One b*tch /shouted "Please stop publically asking
> for groups. Use the /lfg flag. You're annoying the rest of us".
>
> /lfg flag? I must have missed it.
>
> The funny part is that immediately after that, almost everyone in NK
> /shouted "looking for group" just to piss her off.
>
> Now, she's probably right...the /lfg flag was created to keep the noise
> down. She was NOT right in her obnoxious behavior. Anyway, which do you
> prefer? Someone pointed out that people like /shouts better since you
> can be more specific if need be. I prefer the /shouts cuz that saves me
> from doing a /who lfg all the time.
>
> Thoughts?
>
Taylor
/who all lfg
Shouting for a group in your zone is still ok.
Dan Harmon
Hell, now most of the "/shout 35 warrior looking for group" messages I see
have changed to "/shout 35 warrior lfg" <g>
How *I* see it....
When you're looking for a group, immediately put on /lfg AND /shout or /ooc
for a group. I wouldn't advertise in public chat more than once every 10
min or so.
Even when everyone gets used to /lfg, that flag doesn't help a group in need
of a specific class if that player zones in or remembers to "/lfg" 2 seconds
after their last "/who lfg."
I imagine there are some people who wouldn't want to set the flag for
various reasons as well, though I'll refrain from coming up with examples
'cause I can't think how to put them into words at the moment.
Sean Kennedy
Hansel <dst...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:39a3e133....@news.mbnet.mb.ca...
> The /lfg flag only addresses one half of the situation. 2 people
> group up, and their /lfg flags go down. A third person enters the
> zone, and turns on their lfg flag. And waits. The group (wanting
> more people), is waiting for someone to /ooc Looking for a group, and
> the 3rd person is waiting for the group to initiate the communication.
>
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:20:39 -0500, Lokari <lok...@mediaone.net>
> wrote:
I think it's very much up to a group leader to use both
tools at their disposal to find people for their group,
using /ooc or /shout to advertise, and /who to scan for
people. At least I've always used both.
C&R
someone who was going around telling people to use it, not to "keep down the
noise" but so that everyone would make it a practice.
On Rallos Zek though... its mostly been a failure. Everyone with half a
brain is anon to avoid being a pk target. Not very helpful. /who all lfg
with no modifiers doesn't usually return more than 15 people.
That's 15 on the whole server that are using it at that time.
Lance Berg
Starman wrote:
> Hi all,
> After playing the game for a while, and yes I DO read the patch
> messages, I've never seen this happen until last night. I'm in NK early
> and my usual group members weren't around. I did a "/shout 16 druid
> looking for group". One b*tch /shouted "Please stop publically asking
> for groups. Use the /lfg flag. You're annoying the rest of us".
>
> /lfg flag? I must have missed it.
>
> The funny part is that immediately after that, almost everyone in NK
> /shouted "looking for group" just to piss her off.
>
> Now, she's probably right...the /lfg flag was created to keep the noise
> down. She was NOT right in her obnoxious behavior. Anyway, which do you
> prefer? Someone pointed out that people like /shouts better since you
> can be more specific if need be. I prefer the /shouts cuz that saves me
> from doing a /who lfg all the time.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Mike
/lfg on
was added quite recently in one of the patches, along with a
host of other changes; it would be pretty easy to skip or
forget about.
I've been using it, and have had moderate sucess, gotten
a couple requests to join when I hadn't /shouted or anything,
and similarly have done /who and found group minded
people of similar level to /tell an invitation to.
Don't like that it turns off when you join a group; that
tag should run until you are in a -full- group or
purposefully turn it off; is the only group out there
a partnership?
Most people don't know what it is, don't use it. I've
seen countless people /shout level X whatever looking
for group, and when I /who them, most don't have
LFG up. Likewise, I've run around in a zone for
a while with the LFG tag up, nothing, then one
/shout with my info and invites from three different groups.
Here's a thought: when you log in, the game polls you,
demanding an active choice, LFG or no. When you join
a group, you are likewise polled, turn it off? When
anyone else joins or leaves, same questions pop up.
Maybe an involuntary tag should be added too, showing
number of members in any group each person is
in. This would eliminate the problem of 5 member
groups looking for a sixth asking people who are already
in partnerships or other teams.
Pente
Sang K. Choe
<djac...@uswest.net> wrote:
>I set my /lfg to on every time I enter the game and want to group. But I
>never get anyone to say anything to me until I broadcast with a /shout that
>I am looking for a group. Might be a nice feature but it is want that
>doesn't get used.
Use both (actually, use ooc).
Nothing beats the interrupt driven nature of ooc's when looking for a
group in the zone you're currently in.
But the LFG flag will also allow groups a zone or two away from where
you are the ability to find you and offer a slot in their group.
And since there are chat filters to turn off ooc's, there's no valid
complaint about ooc spams. Shouts however, might not be such a hot
idea since turning those off in train filled zones like Karnor is
generally bad for one's health....although, it's really hard to miss a
horde of doggies, skellies, hands, and ghosts barreling down on you.
-- Sang.
David Maung
> can be more specific if need be. I prefer the /shouts cuz that saves me
> from doing a /who lfg all the time.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Mike
There have been many times since this came out that I forgot to or didn't
bother to set the LFG flag, but if I see a shout for a group, I might be
inclined to respond anyways. For example, I've gotten bored of soloing or
finished my particular questing/selling.
I'd say use both.
DM.
Magpie13
Drywit (Errolisi Marr)
J/K Hehe. Jeez. Lighten up already...
in article VzTo5.105$OI2.1...@news.uswest.net, C&R at fca...@uswest.net
wrote on 8/23/00 10:05 AM:
Sean Kennedy
> Here's a thought: when you log in, the game polls you,
> demanding an active choice, LFG or no. When you join
> a group, you are likewise polled, turn it off? When
> anyone else joins or leaves, same questions pop up.
>
> Maybe an involuntary tag should be added too, showing
> number of members in any group each person is
> in. This would eliminate the problem of 5 member
> groups looking for a sixth asking people who are already
> in partnerships or other teams.
>
> Pente
>
I thought that was why it turned off. A person with /lfg on
is solo and looking, anybody without is either a) in a group
(not necessarily full) or b) solo and not looking.
Even before /lfg I used /w to supplement /ooc and /shout
request for more group members. In oasis it was often
/w 15 18
look at the list, find likely candidates, then
/tell Person If you're not already grouped, are you interested
in filling out a Highway group?
'course you miss /anons that way.
I always got very friendly responses, even when they
didn't need/want a group.
Stephen Cochran
> prefer? Someone pointed out that people like /shouts better since you
> can be more specific if need be. I prefer the /shouts cuz that saves me
> from doing a /who lfg all the time.
Since it has only been in for two weeks, many people don't know about it yet
(many skip most of the patch message). For example, prime time last Saturday
on The Nameless, 1865 people online and 25 on the _entire server_ had LFG
on.
The solution is to educate. Whenever I group, I ask "Are you all aware of
the new Looking for a Group (LFG) flag?". If anyone says no, I explain it.
Also, LFG can be MORE specific than shouting, since you can use the full
complement of /who filters with it, so you can say "/who all 14 16 cleric
lfg" to find all level 14, 15 and 16 clerics on the server who are looking
for a group. It's great for finding someone one or two zones over, or
trading in a city during their idle time.
The only way it works it to use it and to talk about it. Don't slap people
around if they don't know about it (like the silly wench from your message),
but let them know what it can do for them.
Happy hunting!
Stephen Cochran
Deepgreyocean
>When you're looking for a group, immediately put on /lfg AND /shout or /ooc
>for a group. I wouldn't advertise in public chat more than once every 10
>min or so.
>
>Even when everyone gets used to /lfg, that flag doesn't help a group in need
>of a specific class if that player zones in or remembers to "/lfg" 2 seconds
>after their last "/who lfg."
This sounds about right. I have experienced all of this in South Karana, that
flashpoint of pickup grouping. If I know I'm going in to hunt, I'll put the
flag on as soon as I zone in. On two occasions I have received tells before
I've reached the edge of the stone bridge. Otherwise, I'll add an /ooc, and
that still seems to help. (The flip side is that is not everybody already in a
group knows about the flag yet.)
Likewise while looking to add members to an existing group. Running a /who lfg
doesn't seem to pick up the people who want groups who don't know the flag
exists, so in a group we'll do /who lfg, use /tells, and also shout openly for
members.
The one thing that this seems tailormade to do is forming new groups in busier
zones. On one occasion I waited a while to find a group, did /who lfg and saw
4 people of comparable level. Instead of /ooc 23 warrior seeks group I did a
/ooc 23 warrior forming bird group, send tells -- and got 8 or 9 people wanting
to group.
>I imagine there are some people who wouldn't want to set the flag for
>various reasons as well, though I'll refrain from coming up with examples
>'cause I can't think how to put them into words at the moment.
There are tons of reasons why this might happen. It's similar, I guess, to the
way unemployment figures are screwy because they don't take into account the
people who aren't really looking for work but who might take a job anyway. One
instance: I was at the centaurs noodling around (making arrows, talking to the
guy camping Shakrn, et cetera), and a shout went up for a tank. I was in the
zone, eventually planning to group in some vague sense, but not really ready or
overly concerned about it (and thus didn't have my /lfg on). I explained to
the shouter that I'd be available shortly but still had errands to run; 20
minutes later I was in the group.
Communication seems to be the important thing to remember, flag or no.
Bilinsap Hungrybear, level 23 halfling warrior, Emerald Alliance
Lanys T'Vyl server
deepgr...@aol.com
Shane
>I like the /lfg flag, but I unfortunately haven't seen very many people
>using it. For the most part, it's the same'ol shouting. I think once people
>get used to it though, it'll help allot.
I saw this tag today for the first time. Had no clue what it meant. I
missed this one in the patch message. Now however, I'm no longer
ignorant. Ahh, a constructive message thread for a change. :-P
Tim Smith
>I'm not certain if everyone uses it to its full effectiveness. For example,
That's an understatement. On The Nameless, which is one of the more
crowded servers, I've only seen "/who all lfg count" report more than 20
people with lfg set once. Usually, about 15 people have it set. I
don't think most players noticed the patch message.
--Tim Smith
Trickle
>Shouts however, might not be such a hot
>idea since turning those off in train filled zones like Karnor is
>generally bad for one's health....
I never use shout for anything other than warnings to the zone (ie
mostly my train keys).
I remember the only time I ever turned it off, I was in Mistmore after
going though Gfay erlier. I embaressed myself by having a go at
someone for not /shouting Train! ..... when of course, he had.
People doing /ooc train warnings rather than /shout annoy me for this
reason..... though I've had no need to to turn off /ooc in the last 2
months I've been in Kunark. Very civilised out there. I dont want to
go back to the mainland.
Had to beg someone to buy my level 29 invisibility spell for me (I was
31 -> 30 attempting corpse retrival in Dalnirs :(
Lance Berg
Sean Kennedy wrote:
> > Here's a thought: when you log in, the game polls you,
> > demanding an active choice, LFG or no. When you join
> > a group, you are likewise polled, turn it off? When
> > anyone else joins or leaves, same questions pop up.
> >
> > Maybe an involuntary tag should be added too, showing
> > number of members in any group each person is
> > in. This would eliminate the problem of 5 member
> > groups looking for a sixth asking people who are already
> > in partnerships or other teams.
> >
> > Pente
> >
>
> I thought that was why it turned off. A person with /lfg on
> is solo and looking, anybody without is either a) in a group
> (not necessarily full) or b) solo and not looking.
>
AH, but what I'm thinking of are the a) (1) people, who
are in a group but looking for more members, or would
like to join their group to another.
What I keep getting into recently are partnerships that
don't grow into larger groups. In many ways, this is
ideal, actually, but I enjoy the game more in a larger,
even full group.
>
> Even before /lfg I used /w to supplement /ooc and /shout
> request for more group members. In oasis it was often
> /w 15 18
> look at the list, find likely candidates, then
> /tell Person If you're not already grouped, are you interested
> in filling out a Highway group?
>
Me too, of course, I'm just wondering if there's a
way to supplement this with a group flag whre the
group is looking for members or not.
>
> 'course you miss /anons that way.
> I always got very friendly responses, even when they
> didn't need/want a group.
/anons don't get tells from me, sometimes
I get them in response to shouts, its a bit odd;
I have to ask class and level, and I've learned
to check con on them when they show up too...
Pente
Ray Rocker
>Even when everyone gets used to /lfg, that flag doesn't help a group in need
>of a specific class if that player zones in or remembers to "/lfg" 2 seconds
>after their last "/who lfg."
An /lfm (looking for members) flag might be a nice complement to /lfg.
It could only be turned on by a group leader, and would turn off
upon disband or when the group adds a sixth member. Or, perhaps,
reset when any member is added would make more sense.
This would be somewhat redundant with /lfg, but lets the lfg player
spend his time going through /who lists instead of the lfm group.
The lfg player probably has more time for this.
The rub is that most groups looking for members are looking for
a particular class or superclass (tank/healer/caster), and /lfm
would be most useful if that information could be conveyed, which
makes the implementation more difficult than just a flipped bit.
It would be so cool, though, to login and immediately find a group
one or two zones away (or even farther) looking for my class/level.
/lfg is great, but all you can do is turn it on and hope someone
notices.
--
Ray Rocker
roc...@datasync.com
Lance Berg
Brian wrote:
> roc...@datasync.com (Ray Rocker) wrote:
>
> >The rub is that most groups looking for members are looking for
> >a particular class or superclass (tank/healer/caster), and /lfm
> >would be most useful if that information could be conveyed, which
> >makes the implementation more difficult than just a flipped bit.
> >
>
> The syntax I saw for this command was:
> /w all ranger 40 46 lfg
> or something close to that. The point was you COULD look for a specific class-level combo
> anywhere in Norath.
>
> >It would be so cool, though, to login and immediately find a group
> >one or two zones away (or even farther) looking for my class/level.
> >/lfg is great, but all you can do is turn it on and hope someone
> >notices.
Given that anyone lliking for a group has turned on their
flag, this is a way to -search- for members, but it
isn't the same thing Ray was looking for, which is
a way to -advertize- that you are looking for members.
/lfm on
would presumably work like /lfg on
does now, tag people as wanting more members in their group.
Unfortunately, as he notes, there's a lot more information
you'd likely want; which members are in which groups,
who else they want...
What I'd like to see is the leader of any given group
being able to give the group a name... so that people
in a given group would be easily identified as such with a /who
Further, you could then look at a group by askiing /who all (groupname)
to see the current members.
Given the whole naming issue, though, we'd probably have
to go with a standardized list rather than allowing actual
free choice; like with pets, a random name for each group on
a given server. How many is that? Well, given 2000 as
the general high end on a server, and minimum 2 members per
group, 1000 names should be more than adequate.
Pente