Locked out of the Duty Finder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grekumah

Thank you for all of your feedback regarding the new Duty Finder withdraw penalty system. I have been compiling your feedback and sending it off to the dev. team since its implementation. As others have suggested, we would like to encourage you to use the Ready Check tool before queuing up for a duty, especially when in a light party.

As a countermeasure for accidentally pressing the withdraw button once you've been matched with the Duty Finder, we are looking into adding a confirmation box that is displayed upon clicking withdraw, similar to that of when you receive a raise. While the implementation date is still undecided, I wanted to let you know the current status.

---

Would it be too much to ask why the dev team felt that they need to give a strike to every member of a partial party when only one member withdraws?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airget

Ya I don't think a confirmation box is going to fix this, why not add in a feature like this.

When queuing up for a duty and say nature calls, for some especially if you want to wash your hands and not run back to the bathroom it takes longer than a minute to finish it all up.

What about adding in a feature that grants a 5 min auto-confirm duty when queuing up so that say you have to use the bathroom, and been queuing up for 30+ mins you don't have to run frantically back to make sure you don't miss it rather you put that auto-confirm toggle on and for those next 5 mins it will auto-confirm entry into the duty you are looking to get into. During that 5 min time frame I think offers a fair enough buffer to allow people not to miss out on a duty because of something they have to call to or do and the unluckiness of missing that 1 min window.

Rather you offer 5 mins, then when that time expires and no duty has been set to ready the player has to wait maybe 10-15 mins before they can do it again so that it can't be exploited in some way.

---

this would actually be pretty awesome

I like the idea of a auto accept :)

As to this penalty annoyance, any chance you could not start the countdown if someone is in a loading screen? I've not, personally, had it happen since 2.4 because i've not been doing alot of queues, but I'd be auto-withdrawn because of being stuck in a loading screen or quest CS that you can't skip.
One of my FC mates had this happen today (and they usually load far faster then I) zone changes, CS skip loading back to game, some people have huge lag on those (like me, when most of the game runs fine all other times) I've been in a loading screen for 2 min just chatting with FC and laughing at how long it was taking me to zone.

I think a confirmation box is a fantastic fix for those that are having an issue.

The confirmation box confirmes that is has been decided a withdrawal will strike all members of an incomplete light party. You know it, you live with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LalaRu

The confirmation box confirmes that is has been decided a withdrawal will strike all members of an incomplete light party. You know it, you live with it.

---

I don't think that's what he said. They're adding a conformation box if you withdraw from an active queue.

The only thing he said about groups is that he also encourages you to use the already existing Ready Check feature before queuing up. I did not read this as a final say, but rather how best to deal with the "feature" as it currently exists.

I also agree that an auto-commenced option would be very helpful. Worst case scenario the person remains afk even once inside the instance. In that case the person has 5mins to return before the party can vote kick them.

Please don't give us a confirmation box when withdrawing. The problem is people afk and timing out from accepting then having the entire party hit with a penalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zetsumei_Tsunarashi

I also agree that an auto-commenced option would be very helpful. Worst case scenario the person remains afk even once inside the instance. In that case the person has 5mins to return before the party can vote kick them.

---

That's a pretty crappy worst case scenario and if all the failed queues are any indication honestly would happen more than you think.

Great, another confirmation box and nothing is actually going to be changed.

I realize the withdrawal penalty was to punish people fishing for in-progress duties and annoying withdrawals with larger duties, such as Frontlines and the Crystal Tower raids, but the three strike penalty itself is too strict and is locking out players who never engaged in those kinds of activities. It was a mistake to introduce the system during a major patch when everybody is leveling a new class or doing major story or side-story quests. Nobody wants to choose between skipping the new (extremely long) Hildibrand cutscenes or finally get their Rogue into a dungeon they've been queuing for for an hour. If this system was introduced at a different time there might not be such a problem, since people would have had time to get used to it. But since it was introduced, I will submit my own suggestion for how it should be changed.

Why not introduce a system where the strikes can go away, on at a time, over a period. Say every 3-6 hours or so. So if you've got 3 strikes, you still get the initial 30 minute lockout every time you withdraw, but if you're good for 3 hours or so, you're back down to 2 strikes. And then 1 strike after the next three hours. It's not perfect, but it's more realistic than expecting a 3-strike per 24 hours system to satisfy everybody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Giantbane

Would it be too much to ask why the dev team felt that they need to give a strike to every member of a partial party when only one member withdraws?

---

I'd go one step further and ask why a punishment at all was the decided-upon answer. There's other ways to deal with issues like queue fishing and I understand that SE wants to set themselves apart from the competition by not being a clone... But things like this aren't setting them apart in a positive way. Now we are just going to get ANOTHER confirmation box, in a game already full of obnoxious and redundant confirmation boxes. That's just what we needed here.

Please consult with some industry veterans before implementing large scale "features" like this. Only in the SE microcosm of a development team would something like this even make it out of the brainstorming stage, much less into full production.

This game could really, REALLY benefit from a test server so the players can help you find what works and what doesn't. I strongly suggest you compile yet another suggestion for a test server into your report.

Dearest Devs,

There is a better solution to all this madness...

1) Allow the queueing for IN PROGRESS only option

2) Prevent the same person from being queued into the same party after he/she abandons it.

Any thoughts?

It's incredible how people can't seem to grasp the concept of collective punishment. Even more incredible is how people still don't want to take responsibility for how their personal actions affect others in a game that is, by definition, social. It would seem like there's a majority of kids playing this game, I swear (that or so many people are actually in-progress fishers, in which case shame on you and your arguments are invalid). I don't know why it is so hard to plan a little further ahead and to be a bit mindful of what you sign up for. Like, honestly, you can "miss"/withdraw twice without a consequence. And even after the third, you get a 30-min lockout only - is nobody used to way longer queues anymore? Is there absolutely nothing else in the whole game for you to do for 30 minutes without the DF? What on earth can you do three times a day to get yourself (and your party) to the actual penalty?? Seriously. Personally, not once since this was introduced have I even gotten to just one strike. It's not rocket science, for cryin' out loud. Grow up, be less ignorant of others and think a little less of yourself, take responsibility and bear the consequences. That's all. (And if you're actually in a party with friends...it boggles my mind if you really don't actually communicate enough to know when everyone's ready to register for duty.)

And with that said, of course, there might have been better ways to discourage withdrawing - theoretically, anyways, I'm not sure most of us knows what it would mean on the technical side to introduce an in-progress-only feature and a ban-from-abandoned/kicked-duty filter. For all we know, these might as well have been considered and discarded for one reason or another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BreathlessTao

It's incredible how people can't seem to grasp the concept of collective punishment.

---

it's incredible how people think that there should be collective punishment for a single party member's actions.
it won't create a better sense of community really it will just create a lot of angry players. especially if the party was made by Party Finder.

yeah "ready check" is a good idea but it isn't a solution

we have had atleast 1 person confirm that you still get a ding if someone in your party error 90k disconnects. this presents a bigger flaw.

we should not have a collective party punishment for DF . it should be per player only period.

keeping the collective punishment is a slippery slope SE should have never considered

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BreathlessTao

Grow up, be less ignorant of others and think a little less of yourself, take responsibility and bear the consequences.

---

I find your post highly insulting and given that you seem to be so attuned to the social aspect of this game, I'm surprised you are expressing this much vitriol. The design of the queue was flawed from day one and allowed exploitation. People exploited it, because it's just human nature to take the path of least resistance. Punishing people for taking advantage of a design that should have never existed in the first place is, quite frankly, a terrible solution to an SE-created problem. Since it is now mostly impossible to fish queues to even help friends (which was their sole reasoning behind leaving that little "in progress" check box there to begin with), it should just go away, along with the newly unnecessary punishment for queue fishing.

People have lives and I'm sorry if someone having to withdraw from a queue interferes with your game, but that's reality when playing a social game (as you clearly wanted to remind us - this is a social game with real people who have real lives that TAKE PRECEDENCE).

I shouldn't have to think about the "consequences of my actions" when I need to leave because of an emergency - and my friends or the PF people I just joined shouldn't have to eat a strike because of my screaming kid. It's ridiculous. The whole thing is just ridiculous and the people arguing that this is the best way to handle the original design flaw should take a serious look at other players around them and see them as humans, not NPCs there to fill a duty finder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airget

What about adding in a feature that grants a 5 min auto-confirm duty when queuing up so that say you have to use the bathroom, and been queuing up for 30+ mins you don't have to run frantically back to make sure you don't miss it rather you put that auto-confirm toggle on and for those next 5 mins it will auto-confirm entry into the duty you are looking to get into.

---

You don't want an auto-confirm when you're not there. That's like automatically saying Yes to a ready check because you're not ready. It's supposed to mean you are ready.

What you want when you're momentarily unavailable is the ability to briefly defer entry without canceling out altogether. So it's like you briefly step aside and let a few other people go ahead of you in line, without getting out of line altogether. So instead of being the next group to go, you'd be in maybe the third or fourth group to go, but you wouldn't have to start over and go all the way back to the end of the queue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mrydeen

1) Allow the queueing for IN PROGRESS only option

---

Why would anyone not choose this option? You can't have an in progress if no one starts one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BreathlessTao

It's incredible how people can't seem to grasp the concept of collective punishment.

---

We get it. It's a good idea to train soldiers who need to depend on each other for their very lives, or intense group efforts like sports teams who need to rely upon each other pretty heavily. It's bad for a game you play as entertainment, especially one that's supposed to have pretty casual grouping options.

I would just be happy if the queue timer were increased to something a bit more practical. I live in a one bedroom home, with my kitchen and bathroom both within sight of my TV, but 45 seconds if I'm in the middle of doing something in either simply isn't enough time for me to finish, wash my hands, and return to the TV. In the other MMO I play, I believe the timer is set at 3m, and I never had issues within missing it due to being in the middle of something.

It isn't really a big issue as a tank or healer when queues are often instant, but when I'm waiting for 30m in the middle of the night or on a damage class, having to remain ready is impractical.

Lol @ the kids bickering their insensitive opinions.

Punish the individual who withdraws, not the party. Simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niwashi

What you want when you're momentarily unavailable is the ability to briefly defer entry without canceling out altogether. So it's like you briefly step aside and let a few other people go ahead of you in line, without getting out of line altogether. So instead of being the next group to go, you'd be in maybe the third or fourth group to go, but you wouldn't have to start over and go all the way back to the end of the queue.

---

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.)

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.)

Anyway... it's an interesting puzzle to think about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kerwin

Punish the individual who withdraws, not the party. Simple as that.

---

As was discussed in this thread before, from a system point of view, the party is the queue entity. When one person in the queue withdraws, it's exactly the same as if every single one of those members had withdrawn. So while people may not like that they share in the punishment when it's not directly their fault, from a systematic point of view, it's the equitable thing to do. It's a punishment that attempts to discourage every occurrence of match failure. (In other words, whether you consider it "fair" all depends on who you consider as the party who was most wronged: the other people in the party, or the non-party people in the queue. The system is more worried about the latter than the former, because it assumes that the people in the party have more chance of interacting with each other.)

You over complicate things Polyphonica. Refer to my OP to simplify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kerwin

You over complicate things Polyphonica. Refer to my OP to simplify.

---

Conversely, you've oversimplified it. The impact of a party withdrawal is multiplied by its party members. If you only punish the one person who withdraws, it creates a way for an individual to bypass the restriction by allowing others to take the hit for them. And that party failure still means <x> less people in the queue, despite it maybe being only one withdrawal. So, when you queue as a party, the punishment has to have some collective impact. Maybe this implementation isn't perfect and there's a middle-ground approach, but just applying the penalty to the one person alone doesn't solve it either.

Again. You are making it more complicated then it needs to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polyphonica

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.)

---

I don't think it matters much if you pause before the commencement window. The problem with withdrawing after the commencement window pops is that everyone else is already locked into that group, they have to hit ok, are locked out of most actions for the duration of that window which very much stalls their gameplay, and a withdraw repeats that annoying process. If you were to pause outside of the commencement window in order to remove yourself from any temp groups you are a part of, then it will prevent you being paired in a group and have the commencement window show up when you know you are going to be AFK briefly. It's actually better for the people you're grouped with, since they don't have to sit around waiting for you to time out if the commencement window pops while you're AFK. If there's an immediate replacement for you when the queue is ready to pop for that group, you will be replaced and shuffled into some other partially formed group. If there isn't a replacement, then the group members in your group don't have to sit through the commencement window that you're not going to be there to accept, and THEN have to wait even longer because there aren't any replacements and you may be locked out of the DF if you happen to already have 2 strikes (possibly because you got 2 strikes because you were unlucky when grouping with someone else who withdrew, or DC'd or whatever).

There is no downside to this idea other than the normal development costs.

Quote:

---

As was discussed in this thread before, from a system point of view, the party is the queue entity. When one person in the queue withdraws, it's exactly the same as if every single one of those members had withdrawn. So while people may not like that they share in the punishment when it's not directly their fault, from a systematic point of view, it's the equitable thing to do. It's a punishment that attempts to discourage every occurrence of match failure. (In other words, whether you consider it "fair" all depends on who you consider as the party who was most wronged: the other people in the party, or the non-party people in the queue. The system is more worried about the latter than the former, because it assumes that the people in the party have more chance of interacting with each other.)

---

A person withdrawing within a group hurts his own party more than non party members. Everybody (party and non party members alike) all get to experience a "failed' queue. However party members get to naturally suffer the additional penalty of being placed in the back of the line when they do queue up again. It isn't equitable in any interpretation. It may be *easier* to implement because the punishment system may have no idea who in the group withdrew, but there is no way to interpret this as fair.

It's "fairer" than giving strikes to EVERYBODY that sees the commencement window (party members AND whatever random non party members happen to be stuck in the queue from your group). But that's not really saying much.

Besides, non party members who are grouped with a partial group already have the benefit of a lower chance of a failed queue. 8 individuals acting on their own are going to each have some chance to not accept the queue. This chance to not accept is going to be lower for a partial group, due to inherent social pressures to not disappoint the group (because, as has been stated, those members that clicked "ok" already still get hit with the same failed queue that the non party members did, and it's every bit as annoying), and this is without any external punishment mechanism. So in terms of the effects upon non party members, there is no greater threat of a failed queue when they are grouped with a partial group vs. only individuals. There is no justification in terms of fairness, from the point of view of the non party members, for treating a partially formed group any different than a collection of random individuals (in that you give all of the partially formed group strikes when one member withdraws as opposed to only a single individual getting a strike when they queue solo).

Now, of course, you may think that it's good to ratchet up those social pressures to accept by additional punishment for the group due to one individuals actions (ie: they experience a failed queue, they go to the back of the line when they re-enter a queue, AND they also all suffer a strike). And this may lead to an even lower chance for partial groups to withdraw than they are already at (which is lower than an equal number of solo individuals), but this comes at a cost. It starts to encourage people to not group casually with random individuals for fear of getting a strike due to someone else's mistakes. It will cause drama if someone does disconnect, hit the wrong button, have an emergency or just make some sort of mistake that leads to a failed queue. It leads to overall more distrust and strife between players. There are things the game does NOT need, and it's certainly poor justification to do it purely because you want to apply MORE social pressures to players within a group than a solo player just because you can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polyphonica

The impact of a party withdrawal is multiplied by its party members.

---

It's not in the slightest. The withdrawal of one group has the same impact as one person withdrawing: 1 failed queue for everyone involved.

If there are enough replacements, the non party members are instantly reformed into a group. If there are not enough replacements, then it's a non issue, because the non party members would have never gotten the commencement window in the first place without the group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Giantbane

It's not in the slightest. The withdrawal of one group has the same impact as one person withdrawing: 1 failed queue for everyone involved.

If there are enough replacements, the non party members are instantly reformed into a group. If there are not enough replacements, then it's a non issue, because the non party members would have never gotten the commencement window in the first place without the group.

---

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

As I said, though, maybe the solution to all this is to come up with a different angle for the group to discourage the negative potential, but one that isn't quite as blunt a force as the three strikes. But a solution that's entirely punishing only the one that withdraws isn't balanced either, even when you consider that the typical party would already feel punished having to wait again (but they'd still have incentive to stay in the party rather than leave, because it's still probably going to be faster in most cases, and it's almost always better to play with people you know).

Anyway, it's all about finding balance. I'm not saying that this system is perfect, but I don't think the opposite is quite right either.

Can you add push notification being sent out to Libra Eorzea when a Duty Ready window pops up? There's a third party program out there that does that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zirael_Foxfire

Can you add push notification being sent out to Libra Eorzea when a Duty Ready window pops up? There's a third party program out there that does that.

---

Yep and they charge $5 a month for it too.

SE should really take notice when a feature is in high enough demand that people are willing to pay real money to use it.

In the current system it is more beneficial to accept the duty and either leave, ask party to kick you or go afk for 10min for the system to automatically log you off dungeon. This screws over with 3 or 7 other people in the party. And if a tank or healer does that, there is a big chance there will not be another tank/healer joining a 0/4 in-progress dungeon any time soon. Mor often than not, party needs to leave and queue again.

Also, SE, can you make the FFXIV program blink on the Windows Task Bar when duty finder window pops up? I like to alt+tab from game to read things on Skype or Firefox and don't always want to keep the speakers on. Rift does this for Duty Finder window and being attacked by an enemy for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polyphonica

Conversely, you've oversimplified it. The impact of a party withdrawal is multiplied by its party members. If you only punish the one person who withdraws, it creates a way for an individual to bypass the restriction by allowing others to take the hit for them. And that party failure still means <x> less people in the queue, despite it maybe being only one withdrawal. So, when you queue as a party, the punishment has to have some collective impact. Maybe this implementation isn't perfect and there's a middle-ground approach, but just applying the penalty to the one person alone doesn't solve it either.

---

Collective punishment for error of one person? They tried that during second world war. If 6 people click [Yes] and one person is in the toilet, why do developers punish the people who were ready? Especially if the wait time is long. Do developers intend to bring back the 'puking Pandy' situation into the game?

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.

it isn't hypothetical that if you are that one dps that the party shoved back into the queue by withdrawing, you will be forced to wait as you will be back at the end of the queue.

I just want to say that I have been playing when patch 2.4 up until now I haven't had a single 30 Minutes effects from this features. If you play your card right you shouldn't have a problem. People have to know that it only effect if your party isn't full. I have the opposite where ST and Dungeon que is much better. I barely get anymore of those Party Member withdraw free Duty where previous patch I get it none stop.

Was just about to go into a T6 farming party, then I get a red error text and turns out I've been penalized for the past 16 mins.... then I look and I've only not confirmed entry into 1 dungeon... therefore I get kicked from the farm party.... good f**king job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zirael_Foxfire

Collective punishment for error of one person? They tried that during second world war.

---

If you're going to compare this to a devastating world war you have to recall that:

1. There wereplenty of spies and "sleeper cells" in the US before they got involved into the war.
2. It made sense even though it was a drastic step, it made sense to be better safe than sorry.
3. Unless you truly studied it and didn't get only the US version of what happened in WWII, you wouldn't really know the full scope of the war.
4. Don't compare this to a war that killed millions.

Here, it makes sense because you can circumvent the system if only 1 person got a strike. Don't want a withdraw penalty? Join a party! You get 3 strikes. Three. Even the rep says use Ready Check, a tool available for the very specific purpose to see if people are ready or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taliph

it isn't hypothetical that if you are that one dps that the party shoved back into the queue by withdrawing, you will be forced to wait as you will be back at the end of the queue.

---

How is that even related to the problem of withdrawal punishment? You are pushed back in the queue anyway as soon as someone withdraws in your party....punishment or not. Again....ready check can help you with that. I get the feeling people are making up all kinds of weird scenarios that they try to blame on the changes.

I know my sentence was a bit of a run on, but I am actually for the status quo. The solo queued dps (or tank, healer, tho they are less effected) shouldn't have to double their wait time due to a party queuing before they are actually ready.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zirael_Foxfire

In the current system it is more beneficial to accept the duty and either leave, ask party to kick you or go afk for 10min for the system to automatically log you off dungeon. ...

---

This is utter garbage. People trolling dungeons will be reported to GM as trolls. If you are DPS that just go in and leaves, you take the 30 min penalty and rightly so, and if you go afk, offline, etc. you will vote kicked properly and replaced very quickly. No one is stuck waiting. Healers and tanks get near instant queues all the time. They do not get to abuse the system fishing on the DF for god knows what. When they are in, if they want to be a troll and not heal or tank, they get to talk to the GM. Being a healer and sometimes a tank myself, I like that when I click commence it is go and not have to beat the withdraw boss first.

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.

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.

---

Again, patently FALSE. I am against *this* penalty because it's a rock foolish way to fix the queue fishing problem, not because I want people to be able to troll other players and ruin their experience.

This attitude really needs to stop. You are willfully ignoring every single legitimate point that has been made by MULTIPLE people in this thread.