He’s a troll. Rest assured 
Well , i hope that blizzard is reading this , wow clasic ! Extra! But there is some things , like this dangion finder that we just NEED , sooo i know that is you cant implement that is clasic but just put Wotlk and that is it, i say this becouse when i say wow , i meen Up to WOTLK , that is best from wow for me that you make !
And no one will be bored or so, years and years pass peoples payed Wotlk on private servers , playing today ! Also. Why ?
Becouse its best of WoW you can get.
2 Likes
[LookingForGroup channel:] LF tank… (x10000 times)
[wisper] I join.
Yea, real socializing that actually makes it worth not having a LFG tool … 
I would like to see LFG tool as it is incl instant travel to dungeon, but not nerfing the dungeon itself (which i think is the real problem on retail, leveling dungeons are to easy, its not the LFG-tool thats the problem)
I do not like spending 45mins looking for a group, 20 minutes for everyone to arrive before actually having the fun of a dungeon run
And those who like the old ways of getting inside the dungeon, you can still do the long way (you are not forced to use this tool)
(unless ofc the majority of players actually prefer the tool, which would leave the LFG-channel empty, but if the majority would like to use it, maybe we should get it? 
)
1 Like
It probably saved WoW tbh lol.
Who on earth finds spamming “LF Tank” for 1 hour fun?
It actually allowed people with less time to actually do the dungeons.
2 Likes
We need to purge evil guild leader that decide who get the loot and who does not.
Again with that problem, kemurai… You’re still only thinking about the individual, while remaining oblivious to the wider consequences.
Ok, so to break this down, automated matchmaking can be relatively toxic-free. It can. But it requires certain conditions to be met to steer clear of breeding toxic outbursts.
https://www.projecthorseshoe.com/reports/featured/ph18r8.htm goes over exactly what’s needed for automated matchmaking to function. But a simple summary is that it requires simpler content matching the lack of subconscious social mechanisms in such a design.
And I literally mean content even babies can play without being punished in a meaningful way for it. It can’t be any form of challenging whatsoever, other than requiring time. (Retail rings a bell, anyone?)
Anyway, so what it did was enable this anonymous wasteland where nobody talks to build its roots in the habits of players, and if they do talk there’s an abnormally high risk of it being because of toxic outbursts.
So what the actions of simply saying “hello, can I …?” or “hello, I’m a night elf XXXXX lvl YY, can I join?” gives room for is a subconscious mechanism in all our brains, where we mentally accept the person we’re inviting, and we have control over which group we might want to join.
This may not seem like a big deal, but it’s the very foundation of how we grow socially in a game like this.
Which means when you turn this off more and more, you eventually end up in a social landscape like retail, where many treats other players as exchangeable tools, kinda like bots. No reason to remember anyone. No reason to bond with anyone.
As the report itself states:
Many game designers assume that if there is a shared reward, people will naturally align their activities. This might work if humans were hyper-rational, profit-maximizing automatons, but they are not.
The big idea
Key discoveries in social psychology place hard limits on the types of social games we can build.
- Friendship research shows meaningful in-game relationships require conditions such as proximity, similarity, reciprocity, and disclosure
- Dunbar’s Layers research shows that players have hard limits on the number of meaningful relationships in their life. These friendship are organized into layers of increasing size and decreasing intimacy.
- Social group research shows the need for increasingly complex support structure as group size grows
These are the physics that social designers must understand and build into their designs.
The trap
Many past designs ignored Dunbar’s Layers and naively assumed “more is better.” They ignore friendship formation and assume “it just happens.” They ignore social groups and arbitrarily mash players together.
In reality, these assumptions are actively harmful and cause the following:
- Fewer in-game friendships . A flood of strangers swamp the reciprocation and proximity mechanisms that generate friends. Poor identity, persistence, reciprocity, and consent systems mean these strangers never convert into friends, so there are fewer meaningful relationships in the game.
- Increased toxicity . Large groups of strangers naturally breed toxic sub-groups. Players engage in violent rejection of out-groups in order to protect their experience and intergroup conflict becomes the cultural norm. Such communities are hard to reform and poison long-term retention.
- Scope creep . The additional systems necessary to manage large groups of strangers substantially increase the scope of your game.
What players need
If players have not filled all the slots in their primary friend network, they suffer. And, in response, they are intrinsically motivated to deepen their existing relationships or build relationships with new people. Striving for belongingness is one of the strongest human motivations. They will naturally seek out activities that help them make friends and belong to something bigger than themselves.
The opportunity
If your games help build relationships for the player in any of their inner layers, you’ll accomplish a couple key benefits:
- Increase retention and engagement . Your game becomes the place where people attain their desires. Since you provide immense value, they make the game a key part of their lives.
- Improve the lives of your players . They’ll experience less depression, better health, and have more robustness in the face of negative life events.
Best practices
If we take all the insights gleaned from research into group psychology, examples from online game design, examination of Dunbar’s Layers and social motivation—all of it into consideration, we can arrive at several, strong best practices:
- Build games for smaller cohorts . The base activities should target small, collaborative groups. Large groups of close friends are rare or, in many cases, mathematically impossible.
- Cluster players into persistent, high-density cohorts . So they have repeat interactions with the same players. The more reciprocation loops that are completed, the stronger the friendships. Big, empty spaces are not a positive feature.
- Encourage high-concurrency events or asynchronous activities . Logistics favor players being around to interact with their friends. Having friends playing the same game doesn’t matter if you never see them.
- Aim for long-term engagement . Build a game where players are engaged for hundreds of hours, so they have enough time to build deeper friendships. It takes at least 50 hours of interactions to form a basic friendship.
- Attract existing friends, if possible . Existing friends from the strongest foundation for your game community, especially when first launching your game. Put people into safe, guild-like structures and encourage them to bring in their friends.
- Design for climbing the trust spectrum . When introducing strangers into your game, build low-trust activities that scale into high-trust activities. Start with parallel or single-player gameplay and allow players to opt-in to higher-dependency activities. If players start forming strong friendships in game, support them. Bring those relationships into safe places with tools for enabling consent, support, and disclosure.
Weak ties are not universally good for game developers.
- Scope creep . The economic and political systems necessary to make very large groups function are often some of the most complex features in a game. To support weak ties in your game is to accept a certain level of scope creep.
- Over emphasis on weak ties can hurt strong ties . Weak ties are also not a replacement for strong ties. Social groups involving mostly weak ties are poor at providing emotional support as well as transferring and enforcing group norms. Many critiques of strongly capitalist, technocratic or libertarian dystopias center on how a overreliance on weak ties (via large-scale trade, algorithmic replacement of reciprocation loops, and other scaleable-yet-dehumanized systems) leads to an accidental erosion of strong ties.
If anything, modern MMOs suffer from too many weak ties and not enough emphasis on building and supporting strong ties. Perhaps because MUDs and early online games were historically rich with strong bonds, MMO designers simply assumed they’d get those for free. They didn’t realize their desire to build a big game—which historically has been conflated with popularity—was antithetical to the magical social connections that made early online games attractive in the first place.
PS:
Group vs. group content . Conflict with other groups is a common method of providing a shared purpose. Meaningful rivalries can play out over the course of months or years. Games with PvP content can create very rich social histories if they can operate at this scale.
Then also read Old battlegroups compared to now
and then compare it to the xrealm matchmaking garbage in Classic.
It’s important to be able to grow rivalries with others. It affects our desire to win, our way of thinking and how motivated we feel in order to accomplish it.
Which means we need to be able to remember and recognize the people we try to win against.
I can do this on retail for mythic/ mythic+ though?
Again though, what’s the fun in myself waiting 1 hour for a tank and having to spam LF tank BRD etc?
It’s extremely tiring and boring.
But that’s the same with classic though, no?
There’s nothing remotely challenging in classic so far?
I speak in LFG all the time in retail, found plenty of friends with it…?
You find the occasional toxic player, but that’s the same in classic as well.
1 Like
Now you’re thinking from your own PoV. You need to think from a beginner’s PoV. And a beginner is punished by dying and corpse running when screwing up too badly in Classic. In retail, you either spawn at the start or fly in from a very close GY.
Now you’re confusing the mechanical factor to be a human factor.
In the group finder in retail, you don’t search for people as a person. You use an advertising service free-of-charge, where the people replying are bots with an indirect message typed in, if any at all. I don’t mean literally bots, but as far as you’re concerned, they very well could be. There’s no difference since you’re only using them to accomplish a task and don’t look at what they say, but instead at ilvl and rio scores.
The group finder dehumanizes the entire process.
You’re not the norm in this case. As explained in the report, and many other people’s experience in retail speaks against that too.
It’s about the prevalence of it. You can never get rid of it completely. But the social interactions were inherently different in Classic pugs at start compared to retail’s automated matchmaking, but as the report puts it as well even this has a diminishing return over time.
Already covered this. It’s an integral part of the way we socially interact. It’s just a shame that BGs aren’t limited to realms, which would otherwise add a lot more reciprocity loops.
Read the link, young padawan. You have yet much to learn about the Force. 
I Wouldnt mind a Dungeon Finder as long as it was Server only. As for X-realm dungeon finder i dont agree.
The TL:DR of your thing is
“Classic is more social aspect”
I haven’t gone to dungeons ever with the same person, because classic has overpopulated realms.
It would matter more, if we had the old vanilla population.
Otherwise, dungeons feel exactly the same in classic as retail.
You speak of “beginner players” - But the vast majority of classic players are veterans.
This doesn’t mean that it’s challenging though, it’ll be challenging if you had 5 beginner players, but that is not the case in the vast majority of situations.
I’m not personally saying add dungeon finder to classic, just to clarify.
2 Likes
Like most of game, the current system is great if you have plenty of time. I’ve much less this time round, more than once I’ve spent time building a full group before having to leave it.
But I wouldn’t change that for the soulless LFG, One ‘hi’ and ‘ty everyone’ if yer lucky.
2 Likes
You guys know there are addons That help people to find a group? If addons dont help there are discord channels that can help too.
How did it kill wow? Last time i checked the proper version of the game is still going strong after 15 years and counting. Far from killed. Very much alive.
2 Likes
They don’t like it, so it’s dead xD.
Pretty much just that.
3 Likes
Also note that dungeonfinder is used for like less than 10% of all endgame activity. Given world quests there’s no point running heroic dungeons for loot at all, so a minority might use them to pad a trinket slot or learn the dungeon.
So the rest of the endgame which the majority participate in (for those who do content that is):
Raids normal-mythic, you manually find a group.
Mythic+ manually find a group.
Rated PvP, manually find a group.
So if retail is dying, the groupfinder is probably not the principle cause. It seems most action in levelling up dungeons.
2 Likes
There’s more to the gaming community than this segmented area here. It could “survive” for another 15 years, people will pay money for it.
But it’s just like those runescape players, we wouldn’t have any idea it was still going if they werent telling us they still play.
Edit: What im saying is, no one gives a crap about modern WoW. Outside of blizzard drama, im sure no one outside of the people paying for it ever think about the game.
Pretty much, not many people use it for end game stuff, since you need to manually find people for M+ / Proper raiding.
1 Like
Yeah the principal difference is it comes with a QoL window. So the LFG spam is replaced with an “ad” and the whisper is replaced with a request to join. Savvy group leaders will still whisper those applying to join though so it’s not that different.
The main difference is it allows you to do other activities whilst posting your requests to join groups, rather than spamming in capitol city. Tbh I wouldn’t see a similar QoL model as the worst thing as you still need to travel to dungeons in classic. However I’m not fussed if it remains as it is.
The automatic group builder and finder thing, nah wouldn’t want that at all.
You’ll get your Dungeon Finder in TBC. Just be patient.
Only kids aren’t patient.
It’ll allow you to find groups without being TP & no crossrealm.
Why would anyone care what other people think about? Or not think about… Thats just stupid.
Fact is the proper version is very alive… Not dead.
3 Likes