Locked out of the Duty Finder.

I would recommend that the duty finder uses the /away as a check. If somebody is /away, then the finder would say that a member of the group does not meet the requirements as there away. If somebody goes /away during the queue, then it would auto kick them out of the duty finder. Some may get upset about the second request but remember, you can change how long it take before you go auto /away. This would allow the existing system to not be changed, just tweaked to take into consideration if somebody is... /AWAY! ^_^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polyphonica

It is. The party configuration is more likely to pop in most cases (depending on the configuration) due to having less gaps to fill.

---

As you said, it's dependent on configuration, because it's based entirely on the needed classes. It's no different than a tank joining most queues, he goes to the front because he's the only one there. A group with tanks will go to the front because those are the only tanks there.

In equal configuration, it's already been established much earlier in this thread that it will give preference to a bunch of individuals over a group, given equal classes. As evidence by my own experiences in that it's always faster to group as a solo tank than a partial group as a tank. So no, the fact that it queues any faster than anyone else has absolutely nothing to do with it being a group and wholly dependent on having needed classes. Not that it matters, are saying there should be harsher punishments for needed classes because they get faster queues? Tanks withdrawing deserve 2 strikes, that sort of thing? That's dumb :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polyphonica

A group will get pushed up if it means some people that have been waiting a long time no longer have to wait. At that point, the odds of actual queue failure in the system increases if there punishment does not have a group impact, particularly when you consider the potential for players to use other players to exceed their personal limit. ("Hey, I'm still doing this 3-star craft; can you withdraw and requeue for me, since I already have two strikes?") So when you combine that with the innate party incentive (for honest parties) to want to queue quickly and not wait (the "social pressure" part of your previous post), the two together should reduce queue failures and prevent "punishment splitting".

---

The odds of actual failure go up without the group punishment, yes. But if you take away the group punishment, I disagree it's any higher than the odds of failure when considering an equal number of solo players. "punishment splitting" as you described would be a pretty rare occurrence. There is absolutely no reason to force punishment splitting in terms of trying to gain some intended advantage over the queue, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread (groups can't fish, etc.). So the only way this would occur is in the situation you described, where one person already has 2 strikes and needs someone to cover for him. But I believe that would actually be pretty rare. It only applies to partial groups, you have to have an individual who has already accumulated two strikes, he has to have a friend in that partial group willing to take strikes for him, and whatever comes up, it would need to be a situation where he could still communicate with his group members but would not be able to click commence for some reason. Crafting, that can happen, sure, but if you're in a partial group and going with your assumption that partial groups are going to start up pretty quickly, who in their right mind is going to just start some high level crafting that's difficult to finish in time? When else are they going to be there to ask someone to take the strike for them, but not be able to click commence for some reason? The social pressures that are present in every single partial group outweigh the limited number additional failures that would be attributed solely to punishment splitting. So the fact that it's a partial group does not increase the chance of failure on a per person basis beyond the chance of queue failure that exists with an equal number of solo players, and thus does not warrant a group penalty for the sake of fairness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyarukoW

Bottomline, people against the penalty and/or against the collective penalty are the people that take others for granted and expect others to wait for them.

---

suddenly it feels like you didn't actually read what people are complaining about here.
the penalty itself is not what is being objected to. it is the collective punishment garbage we are objecting to. your attitude that we are trying to/going to take others for granted is just pathetic.

some of you are trying to say that it can be abused if it's not a collective punishment thing....truth is most things can be abused in some way shape or form. that still does not make it a fair thing to punish everyone else in your party because 1 person felt the need to withdraw or walk away from their computer. or even worse error 90k disconnected from the game.

ofcourse someone in this thread mentioned a better alternative. get rid of the part that tells people how far into the duty others are. it will stop the abuse flat because they can't tell if they are getting into a fresh dungeon or 1 that is almost finished

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polyphonica

This is actually a good idea in concept, but the real problem from a programming point of view is the mix of different party configurations and the imbalanced need of various jobs.

I mean if you think of it as if we're all individual people queuing, you could imagine that it just fills slots as "first-come, first-serve," with slots for each job category. In that scenario, the closer you get to the "front of the line", the sooner your number is likely to come up; in that sort of world, a "defer" option that lets others step in front of you could work. But if you're a tank or a healer, and there aren't enough of those to go around, your deferral could essentially have the same effect as a withdrawal to all the other players involved, because unless it so happens that another tank or healer shows up, they just have to wait for you anyway. So, "defer" is good for high-supply roles (since there are plenty of people in line behind you), but bad for high-demand roles (since one deferral makes a lot of people wait). (Perhaps you could make it so that the defer option is only available if there are others available who could readily fill your place.)

---

But it's only relevant to the high-supply roles anyway. High-demand roles with nobody else waiting aren't going to be in queue long enough for something else to come up. The example given was someone needing to AFK a few minutes to answer a call of nature after they'd been in queue for an hour or so. If you're only in queue a minute or two, that's not going to happen, as you'd have taken care of that before joining. And for the players (typically tanks, occasionally healers) who get instant queues, there'd be no chance to defer the queue anyway, as they'd never actually be in the waiting-for-a-group-to-form stage (which is the only time it could be deferred).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polyphonica

When you add party configurations, it can get more complex, because they don't necessarily actually get placed at the back of the line. The queue system is going to generally try to form parties as quickly as it can, so if you're a party of 6 and needs two more DPS, you may get those two DPS immediately even while there are 5 other players who were waiting for 1 healer or something. And back to the scenario above, if you're an individual queuer who defers, that still may not allow the group to move in front of you, because they may not have a gap that matches the slot you were filling.

Because of all this, there can't really have an indicator that's like "you're in position <x> out of <y> in line" (which would let you know how likely you are to be "called" soon), because it's a constant flux. The system would be constantly evaluating every single combination it can come up with given what it has to get as many people in as quickly as possible, of course prioritizing those who have been waiting the longest. (That's why you can kind of see it sometimes coming up with a combination, trying to make it work for a while, and then abandoning it to come up with a different combination.)

---

But the complex part of that is there already. It wouldn't become significantly more complex by letting people temporarily defer their queue position. I see it as essentially working like this:

While you're in queue and waiting for a group, something comes up so you have to AFK a moment. You select a "pause queue" or "defer queue" option and then go. For the next five minutes or so, the game will create groups just the same as it would have if you'd left the queue entirely, so you won't be included in any of those groups. After that five minutes, your "pause" times out, and you're back in queue, but with the length of time you've been waiting accurate to when you first joined it (so essentially saving your position in line). Then the matching system continues as though you'd remained in queue the whole time and gives you the priority you would normally have had, as it tries to form the next groups.

If you weren't going to get a "Commence" option during that five minutes anyway, then that pause has no real effect on your queue at all. If you were, then you missed that group, but can be in one once you're back and the pause is over.

When it comes to a partial group, it would work much the same. Any member could initiate a temporary pause, which will prevent the entire (partial) group from being added to a full group during that time. But while the other players might have up up to a maximum of five extra minutes added to their wait, at least they wouldn't lose their place in queue and have to start over (possibly with a penalty as well) because you weren't there to "Commence" on time.


p.s. Having it be a set time, like 5 minutes, rather than telling it to pause and then later telling it to un-pause, is to prevent abuse of the system by logging in in the morning just to queue and pause, so that that evening when you're ready to start, you can just un-pause and have an instant queue as though you'd been waiting all day. It should be set so that it cannot remain paused for more than a few minutes, and cannot be paused again for a while after the pause expires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niwashi

... letting people temporarily defer their queue position. I see it as essentially working like this....

---

The defer button will only be one more button for people to use to fish the DF queues. You can basically be in voice chat with your friends and be asking them if their queue popped the same time it did for you, and the both of you keep deferring until it lines up so you can game the system for commendations. The defer button will be like the withdraw button but this time the system is even required to keep your place while you fish the DF. This is such an non-starter. If you are not going to be ready, you don't deserve to have you place held for you. People should be ready to go click commence and not take others for granted and expect others to wait for them. This should be common courtesy. The collective punishment for people violating this common courtesy 3 times is only a mere 30 minutes penalty.

The problem could be further simplified by getting rid of the withdraw button once the queue pops. The commence button should really mean "I'm ready, commence now/immediately", and you can only click that. Other than that you got 45 seconds to click go. There is no point to withdraw. There will no use for defer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyarukoW

Bottomline, people against the penalty and/or against the collective penalty are the people that take others for granted and expect others to wait for them. But it really should be common courtesy that you be on the ball and be ready to go and not make others wait, and definitely not abuse the DF for fishing expeditions.

---

I've had someone in my party DC right before the commence screen popped up, and all three of us in the party got the punishment. You're generalizations of the problem ignore the very real scenario I experienced where I got punished because of a disconnect completely unrelated to myself. Not everything is due to the maliciousness and callousness of others. People are legitimately being punished due to no faults of their own and due to problems completely outside of any party members control. You just white knight one particular type of victim while gleefully ignoring that other people are victims here too. You need to think of what other people are going through too, and not just the subset that you keep white knighting for.

You really need to find a way to get over this whole "us vs them" mentality and stop acting like everyone is malicious and callous that isn't in the specific group you white knight for. Statements like

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyarukoW

Bottomline, people against the penalty and/or against the collective penalty are the people that take others for granted and expect others to wait for them.

---

are incredibly close minded, and ignore the possibility that some other reason for disliking this system might exist. Your minimal and restrictive view point is not the only one in the world, and It's not the only correct one either. To be more specific it's just your opinion and an incredibly short sighted one at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyarukoW

The defer button will only be one more button for people to use to fish the DF queues. You can basically be in voice chat with your friends and be asking them if their queue popped the same time it did for you, and the both of you keep deferring until it lines up so you can game the system for commendations.

---

No, because once it pops, there would no longer be a defer button. It's strictly an option for while you're still waiting for a full group to be formed. You don't know at that point which groups you might miss, only that you won't be in any that form in the next five minutes or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

I've had someone in my party DC right before the commence screen popped up, and all three of us in the party got the punishment. ...

---

And people will 90K 3 times a day everyday all the time? Really. 3 Strikes for 30 minute penalty. If 90K is happening all over the server, the 30 minute penalty will be long done before the 90K problems get fixed like it was last night on the data centers. The 3 strikes are there for the sole reason to protect against issues like this.

People need to hold each other accountable for those withdraws. It doesn't matter if they are your friends, from the FC, or just met on the PF. Clicking commence should be expected norm, and no one should withdraw unless there are some extreme exceptional circumstances. I would actually prefer it the system just aborted whatever craft (lose your mats, just like bad crafting RNG), fate (no completetion credit) etc., automatically switched you to the correct class, and just put everyone into instance once the 45 seconds is up. And if you try to game the system by not having a single 1 of your class weapon on your character armory chest, you get 30 minutes penalty when the queue fails, its either that or get to run the instance naked deal with all other angry players.

I don't care about your excuses. When I get punished because someone disconnects I have every reason to be annoyed and upset with the system. Three strikes a day is not a good enough wiggle room to justify being punished for someone's 90k even a single time.

You need to find a way to deal with the fact that people don't like being punished for the actions of others, or in my example the fickle internet. I, nor others, care about you reasoning or excuses to justify it.

It is perfectly possible to design a system that punishes queue fishing and doesn't overly punish those who don't deserve it. You're viewpoint seems to think the current implementation is the only possible way to do it and that we all should just deal with it. You're wrong. There are other ways. By refusing to have a discussion about it you're actively road blocking us from talking about a better solution. You need to open your mind to the possibilities and remember that there is more than one solution to a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

... When I get punished because someone disconnects I have every reason to be annoyed and upset with the system....

---

If everyone is in the instance and one of the player 90Ks, is it the system fault or the player's fault (includes the player's ISP's fault)? And if it is the tank or healer, the raid fails. Obvious getting mad at the system is misdirected anger. Players need to be held accountable to get their system, network, etc. to be working properly. If the system is going to crap out like it did last night, then SE get the blame over server problems, but the system, in this case the strikes and penalty, is not at fault.

If you are getting 90K all the time, then it is your job to stop running your torrent, netflix, etc. and get on the case of comcast, time warner, at&t, or whoever else to get their act together. Don't turn a blind eye to the problems, do not be complicit to the problems by ignoring them.

The collective penalty is to use the power of social reinforcement to get get people to click commence and quit DF fishing and gaming the system.

Expecting every player to be responsible for the entire American internet after the signal leaves their house is completely ridiculous and literally is an impossible task and expectation. Stop making excuses for a poorly implemented and designed system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyarukoW

If everyone is in the instance and one of the player 90Ks, is it the system fault or the player's fault (includes the player's ISP's fault)? And if it is the tank or healer, the raid fails. Obvious getting mad at the system is misdirected anger. Players need to be held accountable to get their system, network, etc. to be working properly. If the system is going to crap out like it did last night, then SE get the blame over server problems, but the system, in this case the strikes and penalty, is not at fault.

---

Individuals, maybe. But there's no reason to give strikes to everyone else in the party because one of their members is having network issues. It's not like I should be expected to sort out the network problems of some random stranger on the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyarukoW

The collective penalty is to use the power of social reinforcement to get get people to click commence and quit DF fishing and gaming the system.

---

Seriously, can you read the thread please? It's impossible to game the system as a group. The use of social reinforcement in this case is misplaced and purely destructive in nature as it discourages players from grouping with strangers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Giantbane

... It's not like I should be expected to sort out the network problems of some random stranger on the internet.

---

Why not? If you want to raid successfully, sometimes you need to help people sort out their mumble, TS, etc. If the network lag issues can't be resolved it will be impossible to have them in your static. Be proactive and help solve the problems that you can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Giantbane

...it discourages players from grouping with strangers.

---

Yet fact remains, people queue on the PF and DF even while the whole server went to the crappers last night. Got 90K-ed out of Mog EX 3 times before everyone gave up and went to bed. People don't need to be withdrawing, period. It should be a rare exception that it happens. People trolling others with withdraws need to be reported to the GM. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. You shouldn't need a 3rd strike to report the withdraw troll or to not party with the troll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

.. Stop making excuses for a poorly implemented and designed system.

---

The system is implemented just fine and is working great on the whole. The withdraw boss only shows up right around the time of the daily reset. Queue ST or CT at around the reset time, and you have to click commence 15 times to go, other times of the day, it is at most 2 withdraws. As it is, the system is already too generous and lenient and penalty is too light, if there is any fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyarukoW

If the network lag issues can't be resolved it will be impossible to have them in your static. Be proactive and help solve the problems that you can.

---

This ignores the reality that internet conditions change daily and that most network problems exist outside of the house and are unfix-able by home users. Level3 problems being the primary example when it comes to this game for the majority of users.

You're still just making excuses while refusing to acknowledge that this is a real problem that people are unable to control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyarukoW

The system is implemented just fine and is working great on the whole.

---

The existence and length of this thread is a cornucopia of reasons why your wrong. The evidence is right here in front of you, but you refuse to see it. A lot of people clearly don't think this is a good system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

This ignores the reality that internet conditions change daily and that most network problems exist outside of the house and are unfix-able. ...

---

Really? If you give up before you try, then go ahead and take that position. Level3 is not immune to pressure from from its customer base. In any case 3 strikes per day is more than enough to handle the ocassional 90K disconnect and accidental strikes that can occur in that 45 second window. All this about network problems is just smoke and mirrors for people misbehaving and looking for an out to troll and fish the DF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyarukoW

Really? If you give up before you try, then go ahead and take that position.

---

First off you don't know what problems I've personally had with the internet, what I've done to fix it, and how much work I've done to identify the problem, or if I have even had personal problems at all. Acknowledging that the internet is large and owned by dozens of different businesses that don't always play nice with one another and acknowledging how difficult it can be to fix problems between you and the server in no way shape or form suggests anything about the state of my own internet or any steps I've taken to smooth out my experience. It doesn't even suggest that I personally have problems. Keep your ridiculous baseless assumptions to yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyarukoW

Level3 is not immune to pressure from from its customer base.

---

That would be true if even a single person here was a customer of Level3, except the reality is that not one person here is a direct customer of level 3 since it's an internet backbone not an ISP. So not a single person here has any leverage in order to get them to do anything at level3. Do not sit here and assume that all internet problems are easily solved by the consumer. It displays a complete ignorance for how the internet works and a complete ignorance about the options people actually have to remedy the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyarukoW

In any case 3 strikes per day is more than enough to handle the ocassional 90K disconnect and accidental strikes that can occur in that 45 second window.

---

I 100% disagree with you. Even one strike against me for something I didn't do is too much. Regardless of the amount of strikes. You need to grasp that basic concept. No argument you have will ever convince me that I should suck up a punishment due to the actions of another or in my example the malfunctions of the internet for another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

... Even one strike against me for something I didn't do is too much. ....

---

I know I got some OCD issues, not sure about you. But a strike is not a penalty, it is not even 1/3 of a penalty where it is 10 minutes. You sure like to get hung up on obsessing about absolutes that make no sense in reality. I hope you do not get upset over lost packets, because that is going to happen in packet-ized networks, e.g. the IP network otherwise known as the internet. The reality is all you need the odds of accidents/errors to be low enough then the system is good to go, just like signal to noise, you don't need a perfect clear signal, just a signal that is steady and persistent enough to sort out from the noise. You do not need 100% fail-safe for a game, and heck even airliners where people actually lose their lives, don't get 100% fail-safe, fault-tolerant multiple back-ups, but also doesn't mean people get to turn a blind eye to problems because it can not be be fixed 100%. The overriding problem here is not the rare acidental strike, but rather the persistent trolling and fishing on the DF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

I 100% disagree with you. Even one strike against me No argument you have will ever convince me that I should suck up a punishment due to the actions of another or in my example the malfunctions of the internet for another.

---

Clearly you missed the part where I said no argument would convince me. It's my opinion that it's too much. Others here obviously agree. Your opinion is not the only valid or important one. Deal with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

....Others here obviously DISagree. ...

---

This is just one of many from this thread alone. But this one is good see:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starvald

The amount of whine in this thread is really amazing. So what if you get locked out for 30 minutes from using the DF? If you were able to reject the queue three times in a row I doubt that 30 min makes that much of a difference. All your real life emergencies that suddenly spring up on you will most likely occupy you for more than 30 min anyway so don't sprout that poor excuse.
All this whining about "oh but i only have 2 hours a day to play"....if you only have 2 hours you most likely spend the time in queue anyway and not commencing will not be a problem that frequently occurs.

Tough luck if you are a poor innocent soul that got hit by the punishment because some idiot in your party is to stupid to commence. If that happens three times in a row I would seriously start questioning why you are pairing up with such people.....and for all other purposes there is that nice tool called ready check....use it. yeah it sucks if you are innocent and are locked out from DF (for only a freaking 30 minutes)....but so is being paired with a crappy tank in a dungeon....the options that you have though are the same...either you deal with it or you leave the group.

I am amazed by all those hypothetical cases you people come up with of why this is unfair and whatnot...if you have serious bladder issues that makes you run to the toilet every 5 minutes so that you miss every damn queue you ever signed up for....get a bucket or don't queue in the first place. If nature calls your booty back to the toilet and you miss your queue then at least the next queue should be a safe bet unless you peed 6 liters and are in serious need of rehydration.

Seriously though, if all day long you are fine and then suddenly, every day, during those 2 hours of playtime you are hit with explosive diarrhea, incredible thirst, family emergency cause you need to exorcise your little sister, etc, pp....I would start thinking whether you should start up the game in the first place.

---

Don't rewrite what I said. Don't put words into my mouth by "fixing" what I wrote. Plenty of people in this thread agree that this is a bad system. Cherry picking one post that disagrees with me doesn't change that plenty of other posters do not like this system. You need to find a way to deal with the fact that your opinion isn't the only one and to refrain from brow beating people into agreeing with you. It has been recorded that you think it's fine. Go away and let other people post their opinions too. They are entitled to their opinion just as much as you are, and everyone here will not agree with you. Stop trying to refute every single person in some misguided attempt to make your argument the prevailing "correct" one.

There are people here who do not, and will not, agree with you. Find some way to deal with it. Please stop brow beating people after every other post to try and change their mind.

Personally, I'm fine with it. I've been slammed with the penalty and just waited it out, no big deal. In the grand scheme of things, it *is* preventing massive withdrawals from happening too often.

That said, I think NyarukoW is being unreasonable about this, and I can understand why people want changes. So long as the problem is still prevented by any changes made, I'll still be happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andevom

... is being unreasonable about this....

---

It is unreasonable to support a good decision and implementation that SE has done. Really? SE is quite reasonable in their approach and implementation. It is too lenient in my opinion, but I am not arguing for more stringent criteria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

.. Cherry picking one post that disagrees with me ..

---

I am not cherry picking. There are plenty more see:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WHS

This might mean clearly watch who you party with. I agree with the way it is working is as intended. As other people in this thread have said, it should be even stricter but at least it's something. How do you prevent a party from constantly withdrawal from frontlines to promote wintrading? you lock the whole party out that's doing it. Sorry but there is no other way.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EinherjarLucian

This is why you get two free "strikes" with no 30 minute penalty, exactly because Things Happen and emergencies come up. If you find yourself in a situation where you're going to be repeatedly interrupted and are worried about hitting the third strike and taking a 30-minute penalty, perhaps it's not the best time to queue up and you should do something else until the potential for interruptions passes?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LunaHoshino

I don't see why this is even an issue. This can all be easily avoided by the simple step of performing a Ready Check before you queue up for DF.

Now, if you do that, and someone still withdraws once it pops? Then they're being a jerk, and you know who not to invite to a party again.

---

And many more from this thread alone. The one that are unreasonable are the ones coming here making up all sorts of odd hypotheticals and then getting all worked up with false self-indignation about that hypothetical 1 strikes they should not get forgetting the fact that the system is lenient with 3 strikes and the penalty is all too light 30 minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyarukoW

It is unreasonable to support a good decision and implementation that SE has done. Really? SE is quite reasonable in their approach and implementation. It is too lenient in my opinion, but I am not arguing for more stringent criteria.

---

It's unreasonable to brow beat people over and over trying to make them agree with you. You're first sentence is a good example of how you're unreasonable. You immediately assume it's a good decision despite people vehemently disagreeing. They way you ignore the opinions of others and continue to assert your own regardless of what they think is why you're entirely unreasonable. You're opinion isn't the only valid one. Every complaint in this thread is valid and square will take it into consideration even if you wont. Posting three examples of people who like it doesn't change the fact there are plenty of people here don't like it as well. You need to accept that people have different opinions from you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyarukoW

It is unreasonable to support a good decision and implementation that SE has done. Really?

---

That wouldn't be unreasonable, no. However, that's not what you're doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

Clearly you missed the part where I said no argument would convince me. It's my opinion that it's too much. Others here obviously agree. Your opinion is not the only valid or important one. Deal with it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

The existence and length of this thread is a cornucopia of reasons why your wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

You need to accept that people have different opinions from you.

---

You also need to accept this, apparently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andevom

That wouldn't be unreasonable, no. However, that's not what you're doing.

---

In what way am I not showing support for SE? Pray tell please. I have made abundantly clear that I applaud and agree with this change on DF, and I instruct people in my FC to ready check and queue and do not withdraw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

... Every complaint in this thread is valid....

---

Really only this thread? How about every thread, including those with complaints about clear sellers, RMT, lack of help for new/newer players, trouble forming statics, vote kick abuse for watching cutscenes, speed runner vote kick abuse of slower players etc., etc. Those are all valid too, actually they are a lot more valid than crying about a system with built-in safeties and really mild 30 penalty after the 3rd strike with a reset of strike count every day.

I accept it just fine. I'm not coming into this thread after every single person who likes the fix and telling them they're wrong. I'm telling Nyaraku specifically he's wrong for telling me and others why their opinions are wrong. There is a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyarukoW

Really only this thread? How about every thread, including those with complaints about clear sellers, RMT, lack of help for new/newer players. Those are all valid too.

---

There is a difference between saying your opinion once and moving on and posting after every single post in a thread brow beating your opinion over everyone's head. You ignore all other opinions, denounce any credibility of those opinions, and then reassert yours as the only correct opinion refusing any actual discussion on the topic that might disagree with your original assertion. There world isn't as black and white or us vs them like you continue to make it out to be. This is why you're unreasonable and in every thread you go off in people have issues with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

I accept it just fine. I'm not coming into this thread after every single person who likes the fix and telling them they're wrong. I'm telling Nyaraku specifically he's wrong for telling me and others why their opinions are wrong. There is a difference.

---

http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/f/20...ne-d73khqj.gif

His opinion differs from yours. Just leave it at that instead of engaging in a pointless argument where neither one of you is going to convince the other that they're right. You're both entitled to your opinion. *shrug*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyarukoW

Why not? If you want to raid successfully, sometimes you need to help people sort out their mumble, TS, etc. If the network lag issues can't be resolved it will be impossible to have them in your static. Be proactive and help solve the problems that you can.

---

We're talking about very casual content here, not raid content since this only applies to content you can do as a partial group. If it happens once, that's 1 strike down for the day. If a person misclicks or there's an emergency or something else happens, whether it's their fault or not. There is no incentive to help and all the incentive to just leave or boot that member out to prevent a 2nd strike. That's not very conducive to casual grouping.

If 1 person is causing a problem, whether their internet is poor, they're queuing and walking away, misclicking or whatever, they accumulate the strikes. They will get put on time out if they're unlucky or misbehaving or whatever. There's no need to involve the rest of the group in this because the rest of the group isn't responsible for the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NyarukoW

The overriding problem here is ... the persistent trolling and fishing on the DF.

---

How can you keep repeating this when we're talking about groups. There is nothing to fish for as a group, and it's absolutely no easier to troll as a group than it is solo. If the overriding problem doesn't exist for groups, why do groups need special collective strikes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Giantbane

How can you keep repeating this when we're talking about groups. There is nothing to fish for as a group, and it's absolutely no easier to troll as a group than it is solo. If the overriding problem doesn't exist for groups, why do groups need special collective strikes?

---

It *does* open the door to trolling things for groups, though. Put a partial together. Queue as partial, withdraw, have a few cheap giggles. Pass off lead, rinse, repeat. Honestly, if people wouldn't have been trolling queues and/or fishing for in progress (you can't queue for JIP as a group, but it still has to be taken into account) we wouldn't need something like this. I don't think SE is to blame for it; the people that were doing it were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

... you go off in people have issues with you.

---

Really. I go off on people. Last I checked you decide to argue over this starting with this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

...
are incredibly close minded....

---

I do NOT give credit for false equivalences. Just like people who come up all sorts of bogus argument for no global warming, just because they got their opinions and misinterpretted facts, does not give their argument any validity, nor should they get equal play. It is not about being close minded, it is about knowing where the facts are, where correctness should stand. If you are swayed so easily by bogus arguments, there is not much I can do. But it is my conviction that players should not abuse the DF, and it better to be one waiting for others on the DF than to take others granted and expect them to wait for you. The withdraw button is there so you do not keep others waiting and not for you to abuse to get the DF roulette of your choice and taking advantage of all the other player waiting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashkendor

It *does* open the door to trolling things for groups, though. Put a partial together. Queue as partial, withdraw, have a few cheap giggles. Pass off lead, rinse, repeat. Honestly, if people wouldn't have been trolling queues and/or fishing for in progress (you can't queue for JIP as a group, but it still has to be taken into account) we wouldn't need something like this. I don't think SE is to blame for it; the people that were doing it were.

---

Yes those who abused the system are responsible for this. It wouldn't have been necessary otherwise. It's wonderful they implemented it and I think it is spot on, groups included. We have ready check and we have three strikes. If for whatever reason one exceeds that it's only a 30 minute penalty.

I'd be all in favor of issuing stricter penalties to those who thought/think cherry picking Duties in Progress was/is just fine and dandy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashkendor

It *does* open the door to trolling things for groups, though. Put a partial together. Queue as partial, withdraw, have a few cheap giggles. Pass off lead, rinse, repeat.

---

Say you've got a group of 3. If you gave out individual strikes, each member would get 2 free strikes, and then somebody would be on lockout after number 3. So 6 free strikes for "giggles" to troll the queue.

Say you took that group of 3 and decided to queue as individuals. They could each get 2 free strikes each, and then somebody would be on lockout after number 3. They can take turns trolling the queue for 6 free strikes for "giggles". You'll notice being in a group didn't give you any extra strikes. And anybody that dedicated to trolling is going to have a tank or healer to do it with. So punishing the group with additional strikes for those who didn't withdraw is unnecessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashkendor

Honestly, if people wouldn't have been trolling queues and/or fishing for in progress (you can't queue for JIP as a group, but it still has to be taken into account) we wouldn't need something like this. I don't think SE is to blame for it; the people that were doing it were.

---

We're talking primarily about partial groups at the moment and whether or not it's appropriate to give strike to the whole group or the one who withdrew. In this scenario, you do NOT have to take fishing for in progress (or fishing for anything) into account because that does not exist for groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Giantbane

You'll notice being in a group didn't give you any extra strikes. And anybody that dedicated to trolling is going to have a tank or healer to do it with. So punishing the group with additional strikes for those who didn't withdraw is unnecessary.

---

Eh, yeah, I guess you have a point; if you don't mind being locked out of the DF for awhile, it doesn't matter. There's always the ST/CT queues though; imagine queueing in a premade of 6 or 7 and what you could do. That admittedly is a very specific situation, but those queues are the absolute worst for withdrawals in my experience.

Quote:

---

When we're talking about whether or not the person that withdrew should get a strike or the whole partial group should get a strike, you do NOT have to take fishing for in progress (or fishing for anything) into account because that does not exist because we're primarily talking about groups at the moment.

---

I more meant taking it into account for the system as a whole. Do I really like it? Eh. It's stopped a lot of the fishing/trolling, but I have been screwed by it a couple of times. I don't really actively like or dislike it, but I do believe that it was needed to stop a lot of the queue shenanigans that were going on.

Partial groups were still able to troll events too even before this withdraw penalty thing. Just look at Crystal Tower. All you needed was enough people to be the majority in the party and nobody could even kick you, potentially forcing an eventual vote abandon.

Even still, the amount of time they're able to do it for is limited, even with just the one person withdrawing getting dinged for it.

Soooo.... I didn't read all 50 pages by a long shot. Is there a tldr?

I just see it rather simply. Goal: stop excessive withdraw spam. Solution add penalty to excessive withdraws. To prevent punishment for the occasional need to withdraw, add margin of error, 3 free withdraws. Simple. Elegant. Solves the problem.

What kinda horrible, trollish people do you guys run with that screw you over more than 3x a day? 3 is generally enough for any normal technical mishaps or random stuff. Ready check is a tool to avoid these issues. I can count on 1 hand the number of party withdraws I've been in since implementation, and 2 of those were me as lead cuing for the wrong instance.

Every system can be abused. The only way to prevent abuse is even more layers of crap which annoys everyone. Kinda like if you got 10 pop ups asking if you're really sure you are OK converting a piece of gear just because some guy accidentally converted his penta melded item by accident. 3 buffer is fine in 99% of the time. Once in a blue moon shit happens and you get a penalty. To bad so sad. Deal with it instead of imposing even more layers of bureaucratic crap to deal with every day just to stop that rare situation things go horribly wrong.

This fighting seems to be focused on the PRINCIPLE that it's wrong to be screwed by your group instead of the PRACTICAL use of the system which is generally going to work fine. The system is fine in practice. Don't get obsessed about the principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashkendor

Eh, yeah, I guess you have a point; if you don't mind being locked out of the DF for awhile, it doesn't matter. There's always the ST/CT queues though; imagine queueing in a premade of 6 or 7 and what you could do. That admittedly is a very specific situation, but those queues are the absolute worst for withdrawals in my experience

I more meant taking it into account for the system as a whole. Do I really like it? Eh. It's stopped a lot of the fishing/trolling, but I have been screwed by it a couple of times. I don't really actively like or dislike it, but I do believe that it was needed to stop a lot of the queue shenanigans that were going on.

---

I agree the rampant queue withdraws were a problem. On the whole I'm disappointed in their solution because I think they could have done something more targeted to the causes of the withdraws combined with solutions to keep players from having to click commence 20 times to get in a dungeon. But I can live with the solo queue 3 strikes thing even if I don't think it wasn't the best way to fix the problem.

I just don't think the group penalty is necessary or warranted. I'm pretty sure individual 3 strike penalties, even within groups, would still be 99% as effective without any of the negative side effects.

My problem always has been there's not enough time given to click commence. I could be waiting on a queue for hours, finally decide to get up for an extremely short rest room break or to get a drink, and it's already popped and writhdrawn me. Not sure if I get penalized for it now, but it's basically just made me shy away from using the duty finder at all these days and not being able to enjoy content myself or help other players.

Greetings,

We implemented this new three-strike rule and its 30 minute penalty because we'd like players to be more mindful when pressing the withdraw button. As you know, when you queue up to the Duty Finder without a fully pre-made party, pressing the withdraw button after a match has been found will cause an inconvenience to other players.

We understand that this new penalty system can be frustrating for users who feel that they should not be punished for the actions of another party member. Therefore, in the future we will look into making adjustments so that only the party leader, or the player who pressed the withdraw button, will receive the penalty. With that said, we'd like to take time to look into this carefully as there may be methods that allow players to circumvent this.

One thing I've reacted to in this thread (well, there's been plenty of things, but... haven't seen this one addressed for a while) is the constant "use Ready Check" reiteration.

Well, the Ready Check only checks if people are ready when you sign up. Me and a couple of friends were trying to farm T1 earlier today; even with two tanks and two dps, we sat in queue for half an hour, waiting for those pesky healers :3
Say we'd been one tank and three dps (as we were before one of us switched for faster queue times). The queue could easily have been twice that if not longer. What good did that ready check do when twenty or forty minutes into the queue someone has to "brb bio"? Or, as actually did happen, one of us 90ked (we did withdraw at that time, actually, just to avoid the queue popping before they made it back online)? We were all ready when we signed up, but just because you're ready to click "commence" at 9pm (as an example), it doesn't mean you're ready at 10.15pm when the queue actually pops.

And... I fail to see how it's worse for a partial group of three people to queue troll ST without shared strikes than it would be for three people to individually troll (as tanks, for example) up to THREE alliances. That's a lot more people inconvenienced, isn't it?

Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bayohne

stuff

---

♥ Thank you, Bayohne!