Would it be feasible to add a Pause Queue feature?

So, this is for anyone who happens to have some knowledge about how queues might work in cross-server high-population settings such as XIV.

Would it be feasible to allow players to pause their positions in queue, allowing other players to pass them while they take care of irl business so they don't have to risk the queue popping over the comparatively brief time they're absent and the entirety of their progress being wasted?

Alternatively... if it turns out that such would be possible... would anyone like this feature?

Responses:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arazehl

Problems I'm seeing is like many things, it can be abused causing huge problems with the DF queues. Pausing to run to the restroom sounds ideal, but then again there are those who just pause it and take a nap, cook dinner, cut the grass, hoping that when they come back they can take pause off and have less of a wait time.

Putting aside the unlikelihood of having no limit to the maximum pause time, or frequency of pauses, available, this is still a non-issue. So you have more people using the queue who otherwise could not have and fewer failed pops (where you're held in suspense for 45 seconds, are disappointed, and repeat until a DPS hasn't gone off somewhere amid their 30-minute queue). How is that any worse than just having, say, a larger playerbase who more rarely leave their computers? At worst, roles in need get more instant while the roles least in need have a higher maximum queue number, identically to simply having more players using the Duty Finder, since... that's all that's effectively happening.

By the time you're in position #1, your queue will have already popped. You cannot hit pause then and literally break the queue system. So I'm not sure what you're worried about here.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if a player starts a queue when they get home, among cooking and answering emails and whatever else, pausing their queue whenever they leave their computer or wouldn't have time to complete the full run, and gradually making their way up the queue over the next 90 minutes; at worst, some people will enter the dungeon when still at queue position #7 because in-role positions #2 through #6 happen to be paused, which looks odd, but... is entirely harmless. But, if we wish to take issue with that, it's as simple as putting in a max number of time per pause, pauses per hour or day, and/or total time paused per hour or day.

if you're busy IRL DON'T QUEUE. it's as simple as that. the game will be there when you get back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrWho2010

if you're busy IRL DON'T QUEUE. it's as simple as that. the game will be there when you get back.

While the OP didn't state as much, I'm pretty sure the idea is for when things unexpectedly pop up on you while in queue. Sure, this is mainly "just" a DPS problem, but that "more than 30 min" wait time is plenty enough time for something to pop up. Something that could literally take just a minute and a half can screw your queue attempt up, simply because the queue pops faster than the average was showing, or someone came to the door, etc. You know, little things that you could tell a party mid-dungeon "just a sec, gotta get the door" or something.

That said, I totally get and typically agree with the "if you're busy, don't queue". That part is pretty standard for most players. It's the unexpected "I just heard a crash, need to see if the cat/dog just destroyed something quick" type issues that this would help address. While I'd personally like something like this, even if I'd almost never get use out of it, I just don't see it happening, especially with Trusts existing now.

Overall, is it an interesting idea? Yes. If it could be implemented properly would I like to see it in game? Yes. Is it actually necessary? Not really. Those of us who play DPS just have this risk, unfortunately.

Problems I'm seeing is like many things, it can be abused causing huge problems with the DF queues. Pausing to run to the restroom sounds ideal, but then again there are those who just pause it and take a nap, cook dinner, cut the grass, hoping that when they come back they can take pause off and have less of a wait time.

I see this as causing a big pile up in the queue as well. Even more so than it is now with the huge player base that FFXIV has. Players, jumping paused players queues, I am not sure this would work in theory, I think the way the queue is set up now it has it own limit cap. I don't want to see the limit cap to fill up with players on pause, sort of like when the Firmament Fate system filled and players would get locked out.

I mostly agree with DW and Almandrigal in re: don't queue if you're busy, but it would be fine to add this if it were implemented reasonably.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arazehl

I see this as causing a big pile up in the queue as well. Even more so than it is now with the huge player base that FFXIV has.

It doesn't need to. Make it so that anyone who's paused the queue can only advance as far as queue position #2. If a person in party has the queue paused, nobody in the party can advance ahead of position #2.

For everyone else skipping over the paused people, it would be little different from when you're in a roulette, and a duty would-pop except you don't have access to the specific duty, so it offers it to the first eligible person in queue instead of you. There is no pileup there either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arazehl

Problems I'm seeing is like many things, it can be abused causing huge problems with the DF queues. Pausing to run to the restroom sounds ideal, but then again there are those who just pause it and take a nap, cook dinner, cut the grass, hoping that when they come back they can take pause off and have less of a wait time.

This is easily handled by capping your pause time to 5 or 10 minutes before it either A) ejects you from queue or B) force unpauses your queue.

World of Warcraft lets you pause duty finder queues. You can pause an active duty queue simply by entering the Proving Grounds. Not only that, but it also allows you to chain-queue multiple duties simultaneously, such that if one pops and you enter, all other queues are paused until you complete the current one. For example you can chain-queue all 3 wings of LFR Battle of Dazar'alor simultaneously. When one of them pops, the others will be paused. When you complete the duty, the others will be immediately unpaused, and the next one will typically pop very quickly. It's not uncommon for the next duty queue to pop within seconds of the the current duty's final boss dying.

I would like it if FF14 were to add a feature like that.

Pause queue? You mean like, saving your place in line? If you are 15th in line, walk away and come back at a later time, are you expecting yourself to automatically be 15th in line again? What if someone else is 15th, walks away, you are 15th later, then you walk away, and both of you 15th's come back to the line at the same time...who gets the 15th spot? WHat about the person who stayed in line and currently is 15th. How is it fair that you automatically get to jump ahead of them just because you chose to return at that time?

Do you see how easily the idea starts to fall apart if you just think about it for a sec?

If you simply mean: Pause the queue on your UI just so it won't kick you out, but let people go ahead of you until you return. Then that is fine, as long as you move to the back of the queue immediately after you return. If you expect to be anywhere but the end of the queue when you unpause, than it's automatically a terribly unfair idea.

I know the pain of queuing as DPS - and it seems like you have time so you go to the bathroom or something, and then oops, you missed it. But... how often does this really happen 3 times in a day, giving you the penalty?

Take the chance, most of the time it won't happen and when you come back from the bathroom (or getting a drink/snack/etc), you'll be fine. If you do miss it, that's why there's leniency before penalties apply.

-

But as for longer term "queue saving", I wouldn't support this. People would do things like queue while at work/school/etc, pause for their priority queue when they get home, and then a bunch of people doing this would, unfairly, stack up delays for people that didn't do this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risvertasashi

People would do things like queue while at work/school/etc, pause for their priority queue when they get home, and then a bunch of people doing this would, unfairly, stack up delays for people that didn't do this.

Ignoring the obvious limitations that can be placed on any such system, such as as maximum duration before the pause is broken, making that impossible, how is 72 people in line in front of you different than 72 people in line in line in front of you (where 15 of them just came back from a pause, long or otherwise)?

At worst, it amount to more people in the queue because more people won't have been ejected from it. That higher population of users is something we usually want, because it generally reduces queue times for all but the most inflated role(s).

I mean I would take such a feature, but I wouldn't fight for it.
For the most part it is kinda unnecessary. Unless you're brand new, you know what you're getting into with a DPS queue...

I personally would love this, especially since I have terrible luck with stuff suddenly happening RIGHT as my queue comes up. I don't want to leave but I also don't want to leave people behind me hanging so it's be nice to just let them go ahead.

But at the same time, that kind of defeats the purpose of a queue and could end up using up resources (though I could be wrong since I barely know anything about programming). A system similar to WoW where you are just paused when in a different instance seems fine to me. But a voluntary hold feature seems redundant unless there's a limit on how long you can stay paused/how many times can you stall.

So while I'd be happy if such a system was implemented, it's not something I'd push for either. I'm already used to DPS queues thanks to WoW so I can live with simply not queuing if I think I may be afk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Ignoring the obvious limitations that can be placed on any such system, such as as maximum duration before the pause is broken, making that impossible, how is 72 people in line in front of you different than 72 people in line in line in front of you (where 15 of them just came back from a pause, long or otherwise)?

At worst, it amount to more people in the queue because more people won't have been ejected from it. That higher population of users is something we usually want, because it generally reduces queue times for all but the most inflated role(s).

It would be different because people can actively cut in front of your position in the line. It's not really 72 people in front. It 57 people in front of you... then 15 people unpause, so now it's 72 in front. Then it goes down to 57 again... 15 more people unpause, and it's back to 72 again.

See the problem? This probably wouldn't happen offpeak, but on peak, especially during the ramp up hours, it very much could happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risvertasashi

It would be different because people can actively cut in front of your position in the line. It's not really 72 people in front. It 57 people in front of you... then 15 people unpause, so now it's 72 in front. Then it goes down to 57 again... 15 more people unpause, and it's back to 72 again.

See the problem? This probably wouldn't happen offpeak, but on peak, especially during the ramp up hours, it very much could happen.

Obviously that would be an absurd way to implement it.

A rationally-implemented pause system wouldn't have all these strange behaviors that people are panicking over.

Code:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A B C D E F G H I J K L [C pauses queue] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A B C D E F G H I J K L !! [A is served] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 B C D E F G H I J K L M !! [B is served. C is paused, so holds at 2. D skips ahead] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 D C E F G H I J K L M N !! [D is served. C is paused, so holds at 2. E skips ahead] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 E C F G H I J K L M N O !! [G pauses queue] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 E C F G H I J K L M N P !! !! [E is served. C is paused, so holds at 2. F skips ahead] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 F C G H I J K L M N O P !! !! [F is served. C and G are paused, so hold at 2 and 3. H skips ahead] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 H C G I J K L M N O P Q !! !! [G unpauses queue] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 H C G I J K L M N O P Q !! [H is served. C is paused, so holds at 2. G skips ahead] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 G C I J K L M N O P Q R !! [O pauses queue] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 G C I J K L M N O P Q R !! !! [G is served. C is paused, so holds at 2. I skips ahead. O is paused but not on deck, so P does not skip them] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I C J K L M N O P Q R S !! !! [I is served. C is paused, so holds at 2. J skips ahead. O is paused but not on deck, so P does not skip them] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 J C K L M N O P Q R S T !! !! [C unpauses queue] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 J C K L M N O P Q R S T !! [J is served] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 C K L M N O P Q R S T U !!

Nobody in this example ever gets pushed back because of people unpausing queue. At worst, what happens is that people in spots 2 through 50 are paused, and when 1 gets served, the person at 51 suddenly becomes the new 1. I'd be happy to see my queue position jump up so suddenly.

I believe this was suggested before, and it comes down to, how do they fairly replace you in the queue? How do they justify someone being #1 being bumped back to #2 when you return?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWag12787

I believe this was suggested before, and it comes down to, how do they fairly replace you in the queue? How do they justify someone being #1 being bumped back to #2 when you return?

By not even trying. See my example immediately before your post.

That's not something that should ever happen.

Pausing and unpausing queue should never change the numbers. The only two things that should change your position in queue are

A) The #1 person is served, and everyone advances.
B) Someone in the middle of the queue leaves, and everyone after them advances.

Paused people should advance with everyone else as normal, with the restriction that the paused people start piling up beginning at position #2. That is, nobody who is paused can advance to position #1. This also has the effect that if people ##2,3,4 are paused,
1) A paused #2 cannot advance to #1 when #1 is served because paused
2) A paused #3 cannot advance to #1 when #1 is served because paused, but also cannot advance to #2 because #2 is #2
3) A paused #4 cannot advance to #1 when #1 is served because paused, but also cannot advance to #2 or #3 because #2 and #3.

I think it’s a great idea. For the people saying it’s “not necessary”, QoL changes are never necessary but almost always welcome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rongway

By not even trying. See my example immediately before your post.

That's not something that should ever happen.

Pausing and unpausing queue should never change the numbers. The only two things that should change your position in queue are

A) The #1 person is served, and everyone advances.
B) Someone in the middle of the queue leaves, and everyone after them advances.

Paused people should advance with everyone else as normal, with the restriction that the paused people start piling up beginning at position #2. That is, nobody who is paused can advance to position #1. This also has the effect that if people ##2,3,4 are paused,
1) A paused #2 cannot advance to #1 when #1 is served because paused
2) A paused #3 cannot advance to #1 when #1 is served because paused, but also cannot advance to #2 because #2 is #2
3) A paused #4 cannot advance to #1 when #1 is served because paused, but also cannot advance to #2 or #3 because #2 and #3.

So basically if I pause in #10, I pause in #10, and everyone advances around me?
Person in #11 jumps to #9 while #10 is paused?

From a programming standpoint, it would have to be something like:

1- Use /afk to indicate that you're away.
2- You are automatically shuffled back in the queue whenever someone with your role is "behind you"

In other words, you'll percolate backwards in the queue, until you're at the very back.

...which is equivalent to you just having dropped out of the PF, and then re-queue'ing when you get back. So why bother doing any fancy coding?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWag12787

So basically if I pause in #10, I pause in #10, and everyone advances around me?
Person in #11 jumps to #9 while #10 is paused?

No.

Did you even look at the timeline diagram? Nobody starts skipping around you except to become #1 while you're paused. Everyone advances normally, including the paused people, except that paused people cannot advance to #1.

Code:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I C J K L M N O P Q R S !! !! [I is served. C is paused, so holds at 2. J skips ahead. O is paused but not on deck, so P does not skip them] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 J C K L M N O P Q R S T !! !! [C unpauses queue] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 J C K L M N O P Q R S T !! [J is served] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 C K L M N O P Q R S T U !!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tohe-Spidhire

From a programming standpoint, it would have to be something like:

2- You are automatically shuffled back in the queue whenever someone with your role is "behind you"

What? Why would you think that is necessary?

The coding concept is simple.

Pseudocode:

Code:

q.pop i = 0 while q[i].ispaused ++i remove q[i] and re-insert them at front of queue

Whenever the first person in the queue is served, skip anyone at the front of the queue who is paused. The first unpaused person becomes the front of the queue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rongway

What? Why would you think that is necessary?

<snip>

Whenever the first person in the queue is served, skip anyone at the front of the queue who is paused. The first unpaused person becomes the front of the queue.

No, it isn't. Queue position refers to the party that you are in, not individual player.

So if you're DPS with a party in queue position 1, but go afk, that means you get shuffled to other parties further back in the queue because you're giving up your spot to newly arrived DPS.

Did you think you were going to hold back an entire party of players due to your being afk? Nope, you're ejected from the party when someone better comes along, and in short order you are in the furthest-back party, making it equivalent to having dropped from the queue. Therefore, not worth coding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tohe-Spidhire

No, it isn't. Queue position refers to the party that you are in, not individual player.

This is not a relevant point to the mechanics I've described. #2 player in queue v player in #2 party makes no difference; just don't let anyone who is paused advance to #1.

I would love something like that...

BUT its not for the same reasons other people are talking about. I queue for like a Dungeon or Raid... and then go do something else like, play the MSQ or replay it, or like now doing Shadowbringer Fates... and there are SOME cutscenes it will not allow you to click the accept button so you have your choice... either let the queue expire or skip the cutscene, and its annoying as hell.

Or I'll be right at the end of a Fate and I'll be going... Oh you dick... you would pop right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rongway

This is not a relevant point to the mechanics I've described. #2 player in queue v player in #2 party makes no difference; just don't let anyone who is paused advance to #1.

Long story short, you've oversimplified the party matching that takes place.

If queue-party#1 has everyone except a healer, and queue-party#2 has everyone except a tank, and then a tank shows up, which party do you suppose is going to start *immediately* ?

Regardless, an afk-dps on either of those teams gets shunted onto queue-party#3, which is shorthand for "end of the line." No point having fancy coding when the person should have dropped from the queue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tohe-Spidhire

Long story short, you've oversimplified the party matching that takes place.

If queue-party#1 has everyone except a healer, and queue-party#2 has everyone except a tank, and then a tank shows up, which party do you suppose is going to start *immediately* ?

Regardless, an afk-dps on either of those teams gets shunted onto queue-party#3, which is shorthand for "end of the line." No point having fancy coding when the person should have dropped from the queue.

All queues numbers visible to a player are already role-specific. If I queue for a trial, healer RQ #1-2 are first party, 3 and 4 the second, etc., etc.

If I pause at position #3, #1 and #2 go in, #4 and #4 become the new #1 and #2, and I'm left waiting for a further party, just as I would have been before pausing.

If I'm healer #3 for a raid and pause, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 enter; I remain at queue position 3. I will still join the next raid to pop from the time I unpause (or maximum pause duration expires, etc.). Depending on bottle-necks among other roles, that may be a good 15 minutes later than had I remained at my seat until it popped and I could enter, but if returning to my desk within 45 seconds were possible, I wouldn't have hit pause and taken that risk over the chance of losing my queue entirely. I have substituted a risk of being pushed back to position #21 or so, the true end of the line, with the risk of the queue popping (while I'm unable to respond) to it, thus skipping an entry I could (not) have otherwise taken.

Bottlenecks within a particular role can push the others to maximum effective queue positions well beyond just the next-next entry. I would guess that if we only ever had nearly ideal proportions (i.e. only a run's worth of the least relatively populous role short of the most populous role's runs'-worth of players) queuing for a duty, you would be right, since the difference between position # (In for next entry) and # (In for the entry after next) would be the difference between the front of the line and the end of the line. But that's often not the case, so I'm not sure it's quite so clear-cut.

That said, it may indeed not be worth the trouble to code for a doubly niche benefit. That's largely why my original question was phrased as such, to discuss whether it'd first even be feasible, secondly--worthwhile, and only finally--attractive.

NOTE: I may still be misunderstanding what you've said here. Or, more particularly, I'm not sure I believe that, say, a solo-queued individual player is bound automatically to a particular party until the time that there are sufficient numbers of each role for a party to be matched, as that goes against what I've heard from people who've analyzed this in the past. Any further links or data would be appreciated.

Abuse issues aside, this would make the queue SUPER complicated and WAY more system heavy. It would become impossible to give legitimate time estimates with players at all levels locking and unlocking in the queue. I see WAY to many downsides for SE to do this compared to the small upsides.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadman1204

Abuse issues aside, this would make the queue SUPER complicated and WAY more system heavy. It would become impossible to give legitimate time estimates with players at all levels locking and unlocking in the queue. I see WAY to many downsides for SE to do this compared to the small upsides.

If I recall correctly, the time estimates are already made based on recent party entries rather than any real estimate of how quickly the bottleneck role will enter the queue, and actual entry times can swing pretty wildly from their estimates; after all it's a matter of, say, a tank joining or not joining, potentially for hours. Even if one previously joined every 10 minutes or so, at any time there could be many more in the typical interval or none for several such intervals. Many of the swings towards the short end are further varied by non-bottleneck roles dropping out.

Again, if anyone has seen GDC explanations, etc., of queues or worked on any themselves, I'd love some insight on how heavy the code would actually be, but so far I'm not sure why the number of user complications through added factors of complexity so outweighing those we already see (e.g. sudden upward movement already seen in long-estimate queues when non-bottleneck roles drop queue due to inactivity).

I'm all for it, if technically doable.
Both for quickly afkling and for, like mentioned, watching cutscenes. Hell, sometimes I even risk dropping off the queue because it pops at the start of a long loading screen.
It's easy to say "if you're busy don't queue" but queues can take up to hours and anything can happen in the meantime, including a common pot break.
As long as it's made so that it's not abused (ex: can only pause for 5 mins or so max) I see no negatives with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tlamila

It's easy to say "if you're busy don't queue" but queues can take up to hours and anything can happen in the meantime, including a common pot break.

Sorry, if the PF takes hours, then that can't possibly be described as using it correctly. At best, the PF is a tool for assembling quick matches, with AT MOST waiting 15 minutes, otherwise you should be manually recruiting people to play at a scheduled time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tohe-Spidhire

Sorry, if the PF takes hours, then that can't possibly be described as using it correctly. At best, the PF is a tool for assembling quick matches, with AT MOST waiting 15 minutes, otherwise you should be manually recruiting people to play at a scheduled time.

1- we're talking about DF, not PF, and there's no "using it correctly"
2- not everybody can play at prime time, and even when you queue at reset time as dps yes, you can easily wait half an hour or longer, as DPS. And this for roulettes, single dungeons is much worse.
You're probably lucky with your datacenter, but how that leads you to believe it's a rule is beyind me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tlamila

1- we're talking about DF, not PF, and there's no "using it correctly"
2- not everybody can play at prime time, and even when you queue at reset time as dps yes, you can easily wait half an hour or longer, as DPS. And this for roulettes, single dungeons is much worse.
You're probably lucky with your datacenter, but how that leads you to believe it's a rule is beyind me.

Sorry, I meant to say DF, and you're still crazy if you normally expect to be sitting there for hours. However, I've already advised you to manually recruit, so if you choose not to do that, then that is your choice. Defend that choice, my friend, as it is your freedom to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tohe-Spidhire

Sorry, I meant to say DF, and you're still crazy if you normally expect to be sitting there for hours. However, I've already advised you to manually recruit, so if you choose not to do that, then that is your choice. Defend that choice, my friend, as it is your freedom to do so.

Manually recruit for roulette? Do people even do that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tlamila

Manually recruit for roulette? Do people even do that?

Sometimes youll see a pair of DPS with a PF up looking for a tank or healer to give them quick ques. Its uncommon, and i couldnt tell you how often it works(since the tank or healer can always que without them and get a quick que anyway or bring friends instead of randos).

Tohe - A DPS can que for expert roulette during their data-centers primetime and sometimes still wait 20 minutes or more. Thats expert roulette - the thing that gets run tens of thousands of times a day. But if there are 100 DPS in line in front of you, then youre waiting on at least 50 tanks and 50 healers(more like 66-75 of each, since some will que with friends) to que so you can get to the front of the line. If you play during off-peak hours then any piece of content can turn into a 30+ minute wait. And manually recruiting with a PF that never fills doesnt get you anywhere - if anything it puts you further back. DPS que is real.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tohe-Spidhire

Sorry, if the PF takes hours, then that can't possibly be described as using it correctly. At best, the PF is a tool for assembling quick matches, with AT MOST waiting 15 minutes, otherwise you should be manually recruiting people to play at a scheduled time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frizze

Sometimes youll see a pair of DPS with a PF up looking for a tank or healer to give them quick ques. Its uncommon, and i couldnt tell you how often it works(since the tank or healer can always que without them and get a quick que anyway or bring friends instead of randos).

Tohe - A DPS can que for expert roulette during their data-centers primetime and sometimes still wait 20 minutes or more. Thats expert roulette - the thing that gets run tens of thousands of times a day. But if there are 100 DPS in line in front of you, then youre waiting on at least 50 tanks and 50 healers(more like 66-75 of each, since some will que with friends) to que so you can get to the front of the line. If you play during off-peak hours then any piece of content can turn into a 30+ minute wait. And manually recruiting with a PF that never fills doesnt get you anywhere - if anything it puts you further back. DPS que is real.

Frizze, I don't believe you read what I'd stated, which was, "...manually recruiting people to play at a scheduled time."

The way it works, is that you describe that you are manually recruiting in order to play at a specific time and day. Keep the DF running, go do other stuff, and when people join, you actually (gulp) talk with them, and describe what you want to do. After an hour, the DF will timeout, but you can reset that. It might be a little effort at first, but quickly you have people that want to play at the given time.

Alternatively, in the DF, at the far-right of each row, there is a little number that you can click, then choose View Parties That Meet Conditions, and look for people that are manually recruiting.

Mock that if you want, but quite frankly, it works....