Locked out of the Duty Finder.

[Kerwin]

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

[polyphonica]

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.

[Giantbane]

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.

[polyphonica]

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.

[Giantbane]

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

As you said, it's dependent on configuration, because it's based entirely on the needed classes. It's no different than a tank joining most queues, he goes to the front because he's the only one there. A group with tanks will go to the front because those are the only tanks there.

In equal configuration, it's already been established much earlier in this thread that it will give preference to a bunch of individuals over a group, given equal classes. As evidence by my own experiences in that it's always faster to group as a solo tank than a partial group as a tank. So no, the fact that it queues any faster than anyone else has absolutely nothing to do with it being a group and wholly dependent on having needed classes. Not that it matters, are saying there should be harsher punishments for needed classes because they get faster queues? Tanks withdrawing deserve 2 strikes, that sort of thing? That's dumb

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".

The odds of actual failure go up without the group punishment, yes. But if you take away the group punishment, I disagree it's any higher than the odds of failure when considering an equal number of solo players. "punishment splitting" as you described would be a pretty rare occurrence. There is absolutely no reason to force punishment splitting in terms of trying to gain some intended advantage over the queue, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread (groups can't fish, etc.). So the only way this would occur is in the situation you described, where one person already has 2 strikes and needs someone to cover for him. But I believe that would actually be pretty rare. It only applies to partial groups, you have to have an individual who has already accumulated two strikes, he has to have a friend in that partial group willing to take strikes for him, and whatever comes up, it would need to be a situation where he could still communicate with his group members but would not be able to click commence for some reason. Crafting, that can happen, sure, but if you're in a partial group and going with your assumption that partial groups are going to start up pretty quickly, who in their right mind is going to just start some high level crafting that's difficult to finish in time? When else are they going to be there to ask someone to take the strike for them, but not be able to click commence for some reason? The social pressures that are present in every single partial group outweigh the limited number additional failures that would be attributed solely to punishment splitting. So the fact that it's a partial group does not increase the chance of failure on a per person basis beyond the chance of queue failure that exists with an equal number of solo players, and thus does not warrant a group penalty for the sake of fairness.

[Zirael_Foxfire]

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?

[Tupsi]

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.