A party member has withdrawn...

[Aegis]

How about a more drastic measure like not trying to force people who want to skip portions helping those who want the items from the first boss.

If everyone wanted to start from the beginning they wouldn't select in progress, now would they?

It's not there so you can 'skip portions'. It's there so you can help others.

[Deviant1]

It's not there so you can 'skip portions'. It's there so you can help others.

the ideal world where everyone wants to help is a very nice concept. the reality is that more people want to skip portions which is made evident by the number of times the 'member withdrawn' is shown.

right or wrong, the player base wants to skip. These players pay the same amount as those who want to run the entire dungeon, and deserve the same consideration.

I do not believe that this change on how much progress, or even removing the progress is a good idea. I foresee that more people will be 'stuck' in parts they don't want and retaliate by sabotaging the entire run so that someone else takes the penalty or they get vote kicked. now instead of having 20 - 50 pop ups where people withdraw we will have more failed runs, delays due to backfilling pt slots and less game enjoyment.

[Aegis]

the ideal world where everyone wants to help is a very nice concept. the reality is that more people want to skip portions which is made evident by the number of times the 'member withdrawn' is shown.

right or wrong, the player base wants to skip. These players pay the same amount as those who want to run the entire dungeon, and deserve the same consideration.

I do not believe that this change on how much progress, or even removing the progress is a good idea. I foresee that more people will be 'stuck' in parts they don't want and retaliate by sabotaging the entire run so that someone else takes the penalty or they get vote kicked. now instead of having 20 - 50 pop ups where people withdraw we will have more failed runs, delays due to backfilling pt slots and less game enjoyment.

So the 23 other players should be held hostage to the whims of one player? He does not pay as much as the others combined.

[Deviant1]

So the 23 other players should be held hostage to the whims of one player? He does not pay as much as the others combined.

I agree, which is why I mentioned that an 'in progress only' option would have been better. this way the 23 people can get the one other person who wants/accepts a full run and should one of those 23 get disconnected or leave for whatever reason, then someone who wants to skip can enter and help the others get the run completed.

in a debate, there are always at least two sides. the 'in progress only' option allows both sides to get what they want. the lack of progress indicator or this new diminished value of 0/1 just 'helps' one side and ignores the other.

is the spirit of 'helping' really accomplished by holding the one player to the whims of the other 23?