Missed ONE >>1<< Duty Finder commence, and now I have 30 minutes penalty.

[Fellisin]

You need to learn how to read buddy boy. People who silently go afk and jabbing a strike on the whole party is not even close to being on him and it is a very poor installation. Clearly you didn't think it through before posting.

Actually if it isn't joint strikes then there a loop hole which can be used to get around the penalty.

If it not joint then a party would have potentially more than two free withdraws before lock out. So if you have two people in a party. One person could get two strikes & then the other could take another two strikes. Meaning that party could potentially withdraw a total of four times before a penalty is issued to either person. So making the feature to stop the massive amounts of withdrawals not very effective at all.

I would say someone didn't think it through and it certainly wasn't Barboron.

[Rysir]

Actually if it isn't joint strikes then there a loop hole which can be used to get around the penalty.

If there is a loophole then it clearly is badly implemented, the game can tell when someone in the party does not qualify for a duty but cant tell when someone has a waiting penalty? That is very much a billboard saying "Badly made function"

[Fellisin]

If there is a loophole then it clearly is badly implemented, the game can tell when someone does not qualify for a duty but cant tell when someone has a waiting penalty? That is very much a billboard saying "Badly made function"

Well no, there is no loophole at present. But people who say there shouldn't be a joint strike system will introduce one. Making the system completely pointless.

[Rysir]

Well no, there is no loophole at present. But people who say there shouldn't be a joint strike system will introduce one. Making the system completely pointless.

Okay so, no loophole is present and thus no reason to strike on the whole party and yet it strikes on the whole party because if that was not the case then people would make one? How would they go about doing that? Hacking? Because if thats the case then it really does not need to strike the whole party.

[Fellisin]

Okay so, no loophole is present and thus no reason to strike on the whole party and yet it strikes on the whole party because if that was not the case then people would make one? How would they go about doing that? Hacking? Because if thats the case then it really does not need to strike the whole party.

You don't quite grasp this do you.

If there was no strike on the whole party it actually introduces a loophole.

Okay if there no joint strike then. What you're doing is giving players in parties MORE than three strikes before they get a lockout. Two player parties would get four free passes before a lock out because one player can withdraw twice & then the other player can withdraw twice. A party upto seven players would have upto fourteen times to withdraw before anyone ever got a penalty. Thus a loophole if no jointstrike, which would be exploited and thus make the strike system completely pointless and the duty withdrawal problem would just be as bad as ever.

[Rysir]

You don't grasp this do you.

If there was no strike on the whole party it introduces a loophole.

Okay if there no joint strike then. What you doing is giving players in parties MORE than three strikes before a lockout. Two player parties would get four free passes before a lock out because one player can withdraw twice & then the other player can withdraw twice. A party upto seven players would have upto fourteen times to withdraw before anyone ever got a penalty. Thus a loophole if no jointstrike, which would be exploited and thus make the strike system completely pointless and the duty withdrawal problem would just be as bad as ever.

Maybe you dont grasp that if people are making an elaborate plan so people only end up with 2/3 strikes is not enough reason to punish the whole party.If people are going to go around juggling withdraw strikes then that's several people wasting their own time as any regular player wont go "Im gonna go around and with draw 2 times and then play with another guy who withdraws 2 times and then we will join another guy who withdraws 2 times and finally play for realsies once everyone has 2 strikes" If people are gonna do that massive waste of time then more power to them as they are only hurting themselves and wasting their time while the rest of the party can just boot them and get someone with a brain. That is not a loophole its just people being stupid and thinking they are brilliant. And they are not getting "MORE" than three strikes if its another person getting the strike, say person 1 has 2 strikes and person 2 has 0 and person 1 hits commence while person 2 withdraws. Who is at fault? Person 1? Nope! Person 2 as they were the culprit. So really who would waste so much of their time to juggle strikes around for their whole party? seriously.

[Fellisin]

Snip.

Yes it would be a loophole as it allows a party to get around the three strike rule if there was no joint strikes.

You seem to think people cannot just go "look got go AFK for a min already got two strikes so far can you withdraw for me this time so I don't get a penalty" or that a party cannot decide to share the strikes between them if they in a group of friends or FC mates.

Come on if there a way to exploit it, people would. So SE made sure that they couldn't even do it in first place. You just don't want to see that.

[Giantbane]

You don't quite grasp this do you.

If there was no strike on the whole party it actually introduces a loophole.

Okay if there no joint strike then. What you're doing is giving players in parties MORE than three strikes before they get a lockout. Two player parties would get four free passes before a lock out because one player can withdraw twice & then the other player can withdraw twice. A party upto seven players would have upto fourteen times to withdraw before anyone ever got a penalty. Thus a loophole if no jointstrike, which would be exploited and thus make the strike system completely pointless and the duty withdrawal problem would just be as bad as ever.

No, there would be no loop hole. With 2 player parties, each player would get 2 withdraws, so 4 total withdraws from the queue. If they queued as individuals, each would get 2 withdraws and the result is 4 total withdraws from the queue. The number of withdraws as seen by other players (who are the ones "hurt" by this) is no different whatsoever. There's no loophole.

More to the point there's absolutely no reason for a party to game the system to get "more" withdraws on a per player basis. You cannot join in progress as a group, so you can't fish for in progress groups. You can form alliances for ST so there's no reason for different groups to fish for each other like they used to. As shown, even if you're so bored out of your mind that you want to troll other people with all your withdraw attempts, doing it as a group does not get you any more attempts to troll the queue than everybody in the group doing it on their own. So even if you only gave a strike to the individual who withdrew from the system, there's no reason to attempt to abuse this loophole that wouldn't even exist. No loophole.