What Would the Ideal LFG Platform Look Like?

From time to time the topic of the existing method of finding games and connecting players comes up. Usually in regards to dissatisfaction with the current Game Calendar and Sub-Forum method. The intent of this thread is to discuss what we, the FG Community, feel would be the best solution for a new platform. (Understanding that SmiteWorks always has the option to use their own judgement on what they implement, and that they have made no commitment to making any changes to the current methods.)

So let's discuss what you would like to see, what you think works well, and what doesn't. That way their is a place for future reference and continued discussion.

As a starting point, here's my views on what a LFG system should contain;

1. Listings needs an 'ageing' system. Such that old listing are not included or are de-prioritized in the listings. GM's need a way to (monthly or quarterly indicates their games are still active and listed). Maybe a default 90 day listing that then must be renewed.
2. Any game calendar or listing system needs to take the viewers time zone into consideration (if they are logged in), or provide a bold warning they are not logged in or their time zone is not set and therefore listing are at a default (UTC?) time zone.
3. Ability for listings without yet a defined day or time to indicate this. Either multiple days, preferred days, or time ranges.
4. An indication and ability to search/filter based upon;
   
   1. Date listing was created
   2. Last log in by the GM
   3. Ruleset/Game System
   4. day of the week (adjusted for time zone)
   5. time of day range (adjusted for time zone)
   6. new or ongoing campaign
   7. frequency (ranges)
   8. expected duration (ranges)
   9. player license required
   10. Free or pay to play
   11. Name / Adventure
   12. Organized Play Group (Adventurer's league, PFS, FG-Con, etc)
   13. Streamed
   14. Audio/Video/Chat (text)
   
   
5. Each listing should contain fields for all of the above plus description, notes, current applicants and status, other applications needed (i.e. for voice/video)

Now, one other thing I think that is vital to keep in mind is the environment any such system might foster. One of the prominent complaints I hear about such systems is that players feel like they have to apply to 100 games and never get feedback. Or that applications that some GMs demand are extensive and tedious. And of course, some GMs complain that they get so many applicants for every position they have to make long application forms to weed out the people who don't read or might not get invested in their games.

I don't know how to solve any of those cultural problems, but I think it's important we keep such issues in mind because we do not want our community to become a place people feel frustrated with.

Lets discuss.

15. Language

A dumb question LFG = Looking For Game
Or those options makes a new calendar to mark games?

You have a good list of campaign details listed. Perhaps it would work if it mimicked how penandpapergames.com hooks up gamers with GM’s.

A FG forum user would set up their gaming criteria profile and set a flag for – looking for a game. The preferences would include your list of criteria outlined here.

When a GM sets their game using that criteria the system would return a list of gamers ranked with a x% or higher hit rate. The system would also message the gamer that a game matching x% of their criteria has been posted. Then let the GM and gamers sync up on the details.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yako2020

A dumb question LFG = Looking For Game
Or those options makes a new calendar to mark games?

---

Yes, generally LFG is Looking for Game, and that's how it's used in this post :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lexfire

You have a good list of campaign details listed. Perhaps it would work if it mimicked how penandpapergames.com hooks up gamers with GM’s.

A FG forum user would set up their gaming criteria profile and set a flag for – looking for a game. The preferences would include your list of criteria outlined here.

When a GM sets their game using that criteria the system would return a list of gamers ranked with a x% or higher hit rate. The system would also message the gamer that a game matching x% of their criteria has been posted. Then let the GM and gamers sync up on the details.

---

I like this, though I think the player side would also need some sort of aging criteria. A GM wouldn't want a list of people that haven't been active for a year or more etc.

Agree on aging - make the flag reset to active mandatory every x-days (30 days) for the player otherwise it gets set to off.

16. Application process: (e.g. interview, long form + interview, first come, etc.)
17. Requirements: (working microphone, webcam, etc.)




Additionally, should have the ability to indicate applicants, rejection count, feedback to/from GM on application, personal blacklist (auto rejects players that are rejected for reason, such as never responds after applying, rude to others, etc.)

anything come/coming of this?

I'm sure this is not something that would be looked at until after FGU release. But I still think it's worth discussing :)

I'm thinking that adding the ability to personally blacklist/whitelist someone (perhaps a json, xml, or lua list file that is stored locally) should be in the base design.

GMs could have a player feedback/review system in place (and for that matter players could be reviewed). This is definitely optional, but nice to have. It would need to be something that makes the review poster responsible for the content of their post, and they would need to be able to edit it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deer_buster

I'm thinking that adding the ability to personally blacklist/whitelist someone (perhaps a json, xml, or lua list file that is stored locally) should be in the base design.

GMs could have a player feedback/review system in place (and for that matter players could be reviewed). This is definitely optional, but nice to have. It would need to be something that makes the review poster responsible for the content of their post, and they would need to be able to edit it.

---

No rating system should be used.
The downsides far outweigh the upsides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damned

The downsides far outweigh the upsides.

---

Opinions vary

How many players does one need to ban/mark negatively? I've been using FG for 5 years and have never had such a need. I mean why not just keep a personal text file? The negativity to having any such type of public system would probably harm the friendly community atmosphere we enjoy. That would be my concern.

When I was pretty heavily into Neverwinter Nights, there was a matchmaking website called Neverwinter Connections. It went strong for at least 8 years as an unofficial "hub" of public multi-player gaming in both NWN and NWN2.

Players could rate DMs after a game. There were about 10 categories and you rated from 1 to 10. The most coveted one from my stand point was something to the effect of "one of the best DMs you'll find on NWN".

Likewise DMs could rate players. There were a similar number of categories, and you could mark a player as "Best in Game".

All of these votes garnered the player and the DM "XP" behind the scenes and eventually you sort of leveled up in the internal website hierarchy. This advancement didn't mean anything other than it could be used as a gauge of how "good" in theory a player was by their overall rating/score. Similarly, you could generally know whether your new DM was decent by their overall level/score and comments left by previous players.

At the end of every year there was a Player of the Year and a DM of the Year that went into the Hall of Fame... basically whoever gained the most XP during the calendar year - a gauge not only of perceived quality of play but also quantity in terms of number of sessions.

This generally worked well, but there was no recompense if someone left you an unjust rating - you basically were left with a possible blemish on your "record". This happened to me once when I lost points for starting a session late... but the reason it started late was half the players were late.

So... it wasn't perfect but it was something. I don't know if a set up like that would work for FG... certainly not as something maintained as an official part of the FG website.

Considering most negative reviews are likely to come from players who signed up for games that didn't fit them and weren't going to be changed just to please them, I suspect reviews would be a complete waste of time. About the only people I'd "blacklist" at this point are those who ghost after one session, but while that's annoying, it's a self-correcting problem.

It's not the DM's fault you signed up for a game that stated what it was and you ignored it because you just wanted to play that system with no regard for the actual campaign frame.
It's not the DM's fault you bickered with the other players.
It's not the DM's fault players show up late/leave early/have RL priorities interrupt.

On the other hand:
It's not the players' fault if the DM does a bit of a bait-and-switch and those players who have been offered one thing and gotten another are disappointed with the change.
It's not a player's fault if other players ruined the game for the DM/other players and they threw in the campaign as a result

And so on and so forth. People look for a lot of different things when they play RPGs, and just because some incompatible wants ran into each other doesn't make anyone involved deserving of a bad (or good, for that matter) review.

like I said, opinions vary, which is why I said it was optional. :)

A bad rating could probably be defeated by simply creating a new fresh forum account. An unless I know the DM who gave a player a bad rating, I would have no way to know who's right or wrong.

Internal message system to communicate directly within the system. Exchange details between players/dm/other players.

Attachment from players DM (import/export characters).

Alerts for messages over LFG system sent to user email.

Reminders sent to DMs with games looking for people but not "full" yet.

Reminders sent to DMs with games to update them if they've been there a long period w/o updates.

Good stuff Celestian :)

I don't necessarily think a review system is critical, but if it was decided to include one, SW could use a system similar to what League of Legends does. No negative reviews, but you can give superlatives to other players after a session. So there might be a couple categories like:

For Players:
"Great Roleplayer"
"Superior Strategist"
"Team Leader"

For DMs:
"Great Storyteller"
"Thrilling Combat"
etc

At the end of the session you might give each player a few +1's to hand out that they can give to anyone in any of those categories. Maybe 3 points, plus one that has to go into a DM category. In League of Legends these totals are seen by the developers, but perhaps since these are public facing you would abstract them out to XP and Levels, or points toward ranks like Forum titles. Then people are able to say something nice about the other people in the game, but can't say anything negative. The worst they can do is say nothing, so a "bad egg" would be someone with dozens of games played but still has low ranks in all categories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lavoiejh

I don't necessarily think a review system is critical, but if it was decided to include one, SW could use a system similar to what League of Legends does. No negative reviews, but you can give superlatives to other players after a session. So there might be a couple categories like:

For Players:
"Great Roleplayer"
"Superior Strategist"
"Team Leader"

For DMs:
"Great Storyteller"
"Thrilling Combat"
etc

At the end of the session you might give each player a few +1's to hand out that they can give to anyone in any of those categories. Maybe 3 points, plus one that has to go into a DM category. In League of Legends these totals are seen by the developers, but perhaps since these are public facing you would abstract them out to XP and Levels, or points toward ranks like Forum titles. Then people are able to say something nice about the other people in the game, but can't say anything negative. The worst they can do is say nothing, so a "bad egg" would be someone with dozens of games played but still has low ranks in all categories.

---

I like this idea...limit it to only verified players/GMs for a given game.