WHY DO YOU REFUSE TO LET US GET FULL HUNT CREDIT SOLO

[HakaseNyan]

snip.

I believe the system is balanced and fair already. Hunting is open world content, sure, but it's also meant for grouping. Hunt marks aren't FATEs where it's every man for himself. You can solo a FATE, but if you try to solo an A or S rank, you're going to lose. Now, the reason I believe the system is fair is because a solo player, forced to because a queue or not, still gets credit. It may not be full credit, but the player still receives credit. To me, expecting full credit, while solo, is like queuing for a party in progress, entering at the last boss, and expecting the experience, gil, soldiery, and/or poetics from the bosses you weren't there for. Hunting solo is like not participating in a party's full contribution. Which, while solo, your contribution amongst 30 or more players making up several different parties, is miniscule.

[HakaseNyan]

FATEs are also a public group activity. Many FATEs can't reasonably be completed solo, but you can still achieve the gold reward for them while solo.

You are correct! Though, I wouldn't say "many" there are a select number of fates where it would be impossible to challenge solo without anyone else around. I'm not saying several solo players can't win, but doing it literally on your own would be ridiculous. But if you apply this same logic to hunts. Why should several solo players challenge a hunt mark? Why don't they group up, anyway, and help each other reach the same goal? I do this with B-ranks, and I can solo B-ranks. A quick party never hurt anyone.

[Krr]

I believe the system is balanced and fair already.

Whether you or anyone thinks it's "fair" or not isn't relevant. The system fails at its basic design goal (to create filler content while waiting for queues) by punishing players who try to do the content while queued.

And that design is intended for a reason. Splitting the pool of players between "Hunt" and "anything but hunt" and not letting them mix wait times creates a host of cascading negative effects in the game's atmosphere for many players - see, when you queue, you aren't just providing something for yourself. You're adding another player to the available pool of players dungeon runners can play with! So by being forced to not queue, you're making dungeons harder for everyone who wants to do them, not just you personally. Likewise, if players could enter and accept queues while also doing the hunting activity and getting serious rewards - as the design intends - there would be significantly less players at hunts, making it a better activity for everyone.

Also, the allegory to join in progress doesn't work - you get incredibly substantial rewards for your time by doing an in progress dungeon queue, especially a roulette. 100 Soldiery or 75 Poetics for half the time spent? That's practically "Full credit" for the dungeon's primary reward currency, especially in Expert roulette, where all the Poetics reward are rear-loaded.

[HakaseNyan]

Whether you or anyone thinks it's "fair" or not isn't relevant. The system fails at its basic design goal (to create filler content while waiting for queues) by punishing players who try to do the content while queued.

And that's just, like, your opinion, man. If what I, or anyone else, thinks is not relevant, then that means our reasoning is also irrelevant. Ergo, what you think about the system meeting its design goal, and reasoning behind it is irrelevant. I'm not trying to sound immature here, but if you disregard what others think and feel, then why should anyone consider anything you have to say? It's like, this whole discussion has become irrelevant.

On a side note, what about chocobos? Would leveling a chocobo be considered open world content? It's something many would like to do while queued, but cannot without being withdrawn from duty. There are a lot of variables to what you can and cannot do while solo, solo-queued, partied, and party-queued.

[Blacksmith_Tony]

It's FATE mechanics, only it's like trying to get Gold on Svara, which means you're gonna need to either be in a party or spend at least 40% of her life bar wailing on her to get your Gold / full credit.

They just copy and pasted the mechanics over, removed the obvious "CIRCLE HERE! KILL ME KILL ME!" signal, and that's how it works. Did people solo back at launch and get Golds on FATEs? Not very likely, with all those zerglings. Party up, or pout on the sidelines with what you really contributed to the fight as your just reward.

[Niwashi]

Hunting solo is like not participating in a party's full contribution.

How so do you figure that? Nobody is talking about soloing the hunt mark alone. They're talking about hunting it together with a group of friends exactly the same as they would be and contributing exactly as much as they would be, if they and their friends were partied together. How can you figure they're making any less of a contribution based solely on which of those friends do or don't appear in the party list on the corner of their screen, when they're doing exactly the same thing in the fight either way?

How are you yourself contributing any more just by being in a party with people than you would be if you were doing the exact same content together with those exact same people, but not partied?

[Cynthis]

The system fails at its basic design goal (to create filler content while waiting for queues) by punishing players who try to do the content while queued.

Completely agree with this and that you should be able to get full credit while playing solo. One way to mitigate this though is to let players join a party while in the queue, just like they should be able to use their chocobo while in a queue. Not letting people change party status when you joined a queue solo might be the worst design decision in the game.

[Krr]

And that's just, like, your opinion, man.

That wasn't the argument at all. The point is that utility for the community's benefit > 'fairness'.

On a side note, what about chocobos? Would leveling a chocobo be considered open world content?

Yes, and last I checked, no one is arguing that you shouldn't be able to queue with your chocobo out. It's been one of the top demanded game features since release, and the only reason it hasn't been done is due to supposed complexity of network code. I see no reason why demanding the ability to hunt solo in the exact same vein is so controversial, as they're the same feature group with the same purpose - "open world content where you burn time and eventually get a reward while waiting for a queue".

[HeroSamson]

Isn't that like the peiste treasure maps. Replace trade with Dig.

No hunts are more like the NM's in FFXI you wait for them to spawn and they spawn in random area's.

I am talking more like the sky gods thing with the ??? though people can go farm the item up, there is no double dipping as I said the people who defeat the ??? monster gets a cool down icon until it disappears. They can go hunt another monster until that cool down vanishes they can't kill the same monster.

Make the cool down the same time as the respawn.

As for the 1 hit full credit thing I agree, I believe that it should not be like that for hunts.

As for solo that doesn't make sense, sounds like someone wants to get the points fast without trouble.

Though I think the healers should get full credit for healing but then again if all healers show up to hunts it could be a issue.

[Niwashi]

I do think they could lower the contribution requirements for full credit, but it should take more than just tagging the mark unless they want level 5 characters earning tomes at the same rate as level 50 characters. There's no level requirement on A and S rank hunts except for needing the ability to make a significant contribution. (And that's only required for full credit. You can get partial credit regardless. Ok, I haven't actually done it at level 5, but I did earn a few tomes once from an S rank that spawned right next to me when I was on a character who was about level 13 or 14 at the time.)