Locked out of the Duty Finder.

[Hyperia]

I would recommend that the duty finder uses the /away as a check. If somebody is /away, then the finder would say that a member of the group does not meet the requirements as there away. If somebody goes /away during the queue, then it would auto kick them out of the duty finder. Some may get upset about the second request but remember, you can change how long it take before you go auto /away. This would allow the existing system to not be changed, just tweaked to take into consideration if somebody is... /AWAY! ^_^

[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.

[Wildsprite]

Bottomline, people against the penalty and/or against the collective penalty are the people that take others for granted and expect others to wait for them.

suddenly it feels like you didn't actually read what people are complaining about here.
the penalty itself is not what is being objected to. it is the collective punishment garbage we are objecting to. your attitude that we are trying to/going to take others for granted is just pathetic.

some of you are trying to say that it can be abused if it's not a collective punishment thing....truth is most things can be abused in some way shape or form. that still does not make it a fair thing to punish everyone else in your party because 1 person felt the need to withdraw or walk away from their computer. or even worse error 90k disconnected from the game.

ofcourse someone in this thread mentioned a better alternative. get rid of the part that tells people how far into the duty others are. it will stop the abuse flat because they can't tell if they are getting into a fresh dungeon or 1 that is almost finished

[Niwashi]

This is actually a good idea in concept, but the real problem from a programming point of view is the mix of different party configurations and the imbalanced need of various jobs.

I mean if you think of it as if we're all individual people queuing, you could imagine that it just fills slots as "first-come, first-serve," with slots for each job category. In that scenario, the closer you get to the "front of the line", the sooner your number is likely to come up; in that sort of world, a "defer" option that lets others step in front of you could work. But if you're a tank or a healer, and there aren't enough of those to go around, your deferral could essentially have the same effect as a withdrawal to all the other players involved, because unless it so happens that another tank or healer shows up, they just have to wait for you anyway. So, "defer" is good for high-supply roles (since there are plenty of people in line behind you), but bad for high-demand roles (since one deferral makes a lot of people wait). (Perhaps you could make it so that the defer option is only available if there are others available who could readily fill your place.)

But it's only relevant to the high-supply roles anyway. High-demand roles with nobody else waiting aren't going to be in queue long enough for something else to come up. The example given was someone needing to AFK a few minutes to answer a call of nature after they'd been in queue for an hour or so. If you're only in queue a minute or two, that's not going to happen, as you'd have taken care of that before joining. And for the players (typically tanks, occasionally healers) who get instant queues, there'd be no chance to defer the queue anyway, as they'd never actually be in the waiting-for-a-group-to-form stage (which is the only time it could be deferred).

When you add party configurations, it can get more complex, because they don't necessarily actually get placed at the back of the line. The queue system is going to generally try to form parties as quickly as it can, so if you're a party of 6 and needs two more DPS, you may get those two DPS immediately even while there are 5 other players who were waiting for 1 healer or something. And back to the scenario above, if you're an individual queuer who defers, that still may not allow the group to move in front of you, because they may not have a gap that matches the slot you were filling.

Because of all this, there can't really have an indicator that's like "you're in position <x> out of <y> in line" (which would let you know how likely you are to be "called" soon), because it's a constant flux. The system would be constantly evaluating every single combination it can come up with given what it has to get as many people in as quickly as possible, of course prioritizing those who have been waiting the longest. (That's why you can kind of see it sometimes coming up with a combination, trying to make it work for a while, and then abandoning it to come up with a different combination.)

But the complex part of that is there already. It wouldn't become significantly more complex by letting people temporarily defer their queue position. I see it as essentially working like this:

While you're in queue and waiting for a group, something comes up so you have to AFK a moment. You select a "pause queue" or "defer queue" option and then go. For the next five minutes or so, the game will create groups just the same as it would have if you'd left the queue entirely, so you won't be included in any of those groups. After that five minutes, your "pause" times out, and you're back in queue, but with the length of time you've been waiting accurate to when you first joined it (so essentially saving your position in line). Then the matching system continues as though you'd remained in queue the whole time and gives you the priority you would normally have had, as it tries to form the next groups.

If you weren't going to get a "Commence" option during that five minutes anyway, then that pause has no real effect on your queue at all. If you were, then you missed that group, but can be in one once you're back and the pause is over.

When it comes to a partial group, it would work much the same. Any member could initiate a temporary pause, which will prevent the entire (partial) group from being added to a full group during that time. But while the other players might have up up to a maximum of five extra minutes added to their wait, at least they wouldn't lose their place in queue and have to start over (possibly with a penalty as well) because you weren't there to "Commence" on time.


p.s. Having it be a set time, like 5 minutes, rather than telling it to pause and then later telling it to un-pause, is to prevent abuse of the system by logging in in the morning just to queue and pause, so that that evening when you're ready to start, you can just un-pause and have an instant queue as though you'd been waiting all day. It should be set so that it cannot remain paused for more than a few minutes, and cannot be paused again for a while after the pause expires.

[NyarukoW]

... letting people temporarily defer their queue position. I see it as essentially working like this....

The defer button will only be one more button for people to use to fish the DF queues. You can basically be in voice chat with your friends and be asking them if their queue popped the same time it did for you, and the both of you keep deferring until it lines up so you can game the system for commendations. The defer button will be like the withdraw button but this time the system is even required to keep your place while you fish the DF. This is such an non-starter. If you are not going to be ready, you don't deserve to have you place held for you. People should be ready to go click commence and not take others for granted and expect others to wait for them. This should be common courtesy. The collective punishment for people violating this common courtesy 3 times is only a mere 30 minutes penalty.

The problem could be further simplified by getting rid of the withdraw button once the queue pops. The commence button should really mean "I'm ready, commence now/immediately", and you can only click that. Other than that you got 45 seconds to click go. There is no point to withdraw. There will no use for defer.

[Tiggy]

Bottomline, people against the penalty and/or against the collective penalty are the people that take others for granted and expect others to wait for them. But it really should be common courtesy that you be on the ball and be ready to go and not make others wait, and definitely not abuse the DF for fishing expeditions.

I've had someone in my party DC right before the commence screen popped up, and all three of us in the party got the punishment. You're generalizations of the problem ignore the very real scenario I experienced where I got punished because of a disconnect completely unrelated to myself. Not everything is due to the maliciousness and callousness of others. People are legitimately being punished due to no faults of their own and due to problems completely outside of any party members control. You just white knight one particular type of victim while gleefully ignoring that other people are victims here too. You need to think of what other people are going through too, and not just the subset that you keep white knighting for.

You really need to find a way to get over this whole "us vs them" mentality and stop acting like everyone is malicious and callous that isn't in the specific group you white knight for. Statements like

Bottomline, people against the penalty and/or against the collective penalty are the people that take others for granted and expect others to wait for them.

are incredibly close minded, and ignore the possibility that some other reason for disliking this system might exist. Your minimal and restrictive view point is not the only one in the world, and It's not the only correct one either. To be more specific it's just your opinion and an incredibly short sighted one at that.

[Niwashi]

The defer button will only be one more button for people to use to fish the DF queues. You can basically be in voice chat with your friends and be asking them if their queue popped the same time it did for you, and the both of you keep deferring until it lines up so you can game the system for commendations.

No, because once it pops, there would no longer be a defer button. It's strictly an option for while you're still waiting for a full group to be formed. You don't know at that point which groups you might miss, only that you won't be in any that form in the next five minutes or so.

[NyarukoW]

I've had someone in my party DC right before the commence screen popped up, and all three of us in the party got the punishment. ...

And people will 90K 3 times a day everyday all the time? Really. 3 Strikes for 30 minute penalty. If 90K is happening all over the server, the 30 minute penalty will be long done before the 90K problems get fixed like it was last night on the data centers. The 3 strikes are there for the sole reason to protect against issues like this.

People need to hold each other accountable for those withdraws. It doesn't matter if they are your friends, from the FC, or just met on the PF. Clicking commence should be expected norm, and no one should withdraw unless there are some extreme exceptional circumstances. I would actually prefer it the system just aborted whatever craft (lose your mats, just like bad crafting RNG), fate (no completetion credit) etc., automatically switched you to the correct class, and just put everyone into instance once the 45 seconds is up. And if you try to game the system by not having a single 1 of your class weapon on your character armory chest, you get 30 minutes penalty when the queue fails, its either that or get to run the instance naked deal with all other angry players.

[Tiggy]

I don't care about your excuses. When I get punished because someone disconnects I have every reason to be annoyed and upset with the system. Three strikes a day is not a good enough wiggle room to justify being punished for someone's 90k even a single time.

You need to find a way to deal with the fact that people don't like being punished for the actions of others, or in my example the fickle internet. I, nor others, care about you reasoning or excuses to justify it.

It is perfectly possible to design a system that punishes queue fishing and doesn't overly punish those who don't deserve it. You're viewpoint seems to think the current implementation is the only possible way to do it and that we all should just deal with it. You're wrong. There are other ways. By refusing to have a discussion about it you're actively road blocking us from talking about a better solution. You need to open your mind to the possibilities and remember that there is more than one solution to a problem.

[NyarukoW]

... When I get punished because someone disconnects I have every reason to be annoyed and upset with the system....

If everyone is in the instance and one of the player 90Ks, is it the system fault or the player's fault (includes the player's ISP's fault)? And if it is the tank or healer, the raid fails. Obvious getting mad at the system is misdirected anger. Players need to be held accountable to get their system, network, etc. to be working properly. If the system is going to crap out like it did last night, then SE get the blame over server problems, but the system, in this case the strikes and penalty, is not at fault.

If you are getting 90K all the time, then it is your job to stop running your torrent, netflix, etc. and get on the case of comcast, time warner, at&t, or whoever else to get their act together. Don't turn a blind eye to the problems, do not be complicit to the problems by ignoring them.

The collective penalty is to use the power of social reinforcement to get get people to click commence and quit DF fishing and gaming the system.