Locked out of the Duty Finder.

[Fellisin]

well this would explain why some are still trolling the DF. they just don't care about a 30 minute lockout.

if SE really wants to stop the trolls they need to redo this.
it should be personal punishment only.(meaning only the user who hits withdraw or doesn't click before the timer is up)
the 3rd time gets you 30 minutes.
the 4th gets you an hour.
the 5th gets you locked out till the reset.

See you've just left a massive loop hole for the trolls with "It should be personal punishment only".

All they have to do is group up and then they have two free passes each at trolling the DF. So a group of two could do it four times before receiving a penalty, group of three could do it six times and so on.

[t-a-l-a-n-m-e-r-c-e-r]

See you've just left a massive loop hole for the trolls with "It should be personal punishment only".

All they have to do is group up and then they have two free passes each at trolling the DF. So a group of two could do it four times before receiving a penalty, group of three could do it six times and so on.

I do not understand your thought process. People with penalty cannot queue in a party. How would anyone get a free pass to troll?

As it is currently innocent people are punsihed by lazy afk people who cannot even be bothered to type three letters or party leaders who can't be bothered with ready checks.

[Fellisin]

I do not understand your thought process. People with penalty cannot queue in a party. How would anyone get a free pass to troll?

As it is currently innocent people are punsihed by lazy afk people who cannot even be bothered to type three letters or party leaders who can't be bothered with ready checks.

They only get a penalty after three strikes. Therefore they can withdraw two times without penalty before not being able to queue. Now if you have system that wildsprite suggests there is a loop hole for the trolls.

So three strikes you get a penalty which prevents you from queuing. Now to get round this if it not implemented as a joint strike would be rather simple. You have a party with three players we'll call them A,B & C. Now they have between them six free passes before a penalty will be applied to any off them.

They queue up. Player A does two troll pops. Doesn't get a penalty - no strikes against B or C. B repeats the process & then C repeats the process. So they just done six troll pops with no penalty against a single player due to no joint strike system. If they didn't care about lock out. They could push it to nine troll pops, with one member dropping from the party as each one gets a locked out. Its rather simple loop hole and relatively easy to see why its a joint strike system.

As for last point. Maybe people need not queue with lazy people and do ready checks.

[Giantbane]

They only get a penalty after three strikes. Therefore they can withdraw two times without penalty before not being able to queue. Now if you have system that wildsprite suggests there is a loop hole for the trolls.

So three strikes you get a penalty which prevents you from queuing. Now to get round this if it not implemented as a joint strike would be rather simple. You have a party with three players we'll call them A,B & C. Now they have between them six free passes before a penalty will be applied to any off them.

They queue up. Player A does two troll pops. Doesn't get a penalty - no strikes against B or C. B repeats the process & then C repeats the process. So they just done six troll pops with no penalty against a single player due to no joint strike system. If they didn't care about lock out. They could push it to nine troll pops, with one member dropping from the party as each one gets a locked out. Its rather simple loop hole and relatively easy to see why its a joint strike system.

As for last point. Maybe people need not queue with lazy people and do ready checks.

And if they all queued up as individuals, they could each withdraw 3 times which results in the exact same 9 troll pops. If you only hand out strikes to the person that actually withdraws in a partial group the result is exactly the same. This loophole would not exist.