People are deliberately ruining the story for others

[missybee]

I don't think anyone is trying to "deliberately" ruin anything. People in roulette generally want to run things quickly and efficiently, and those two story dungeons have some pretty hefty cutscenes.

When I first ran those two dungeons back in 2.0, I asked if I could view the cutscenes. The party was okay with me viewing said cutscenes so long as they could proceed forward with the boss fights. For me, that was a mutually agreeable arrangement. The bosses in those dungeons have always been easy, but at this point it is even more faceroll tier. You aren't missing anything profound by not fighting the bosses, so why not forego those fights in lieu of viewing the cutscenes? If you are really wanting to experience the bosses, however, you could always just enter the two dungeons again, this time skipping the cutscenes?

I'm not sure why OP and a few others appear to be still reeling over this sort of situation. Expecting that a group of people wait for you to finish your cutscenes so that you can also participate in the entirety of the dungeon just feels very...inconsiderate?

[Kaurie]

I don't think anyone is trying to "deliberately" ruin anything.

I deliberately ruin things all the time. Sometimes I even ruin 2 or 3.

[missybee]

I deliberately ruin things all the time. Sometimes I even ruin 2 or 3.

Gosh dang it, you got me there.

Being a Summoner main, you would think that I would've considered wording that differently.

Well, I will live with my poor choices.

[Duuude007]

No, it's called being obtuse.

...So your open volley is an attack. Keepin' it classy. But I digress.

Why are you so aggressively against the suggestion that new players have something implemented for them that allows them to experience the two dungeons as was intended?

Because we don't need a SECOND way to make that happen. They already can, they just don't want to do PF for some reason that we cannot fathom, and instead they would rather force their demands in conflict with the other people (the majority of people) who want to run it a different way.

There are no "special" expectations here. That was the intended standard.

People play differently. Some people have jobs, wives, kids, and limited time to get through content, and want to proceed quickly. Others want to sit down with popcorn and analyze every facet of every piece of dialogue before moving on. Both are perfectly valid, but both are also in great conflict with one another. If a player expects to be able to go at their own pace, they must either negotiate something with the party majority (whatever their plan may be), or find another party. Any deviation can potentially be considered as disruptive harassment.

You however, are holding them, a group of oblivious participants to a new set of dungeons, to the same standard one would expect of high level players who are experienced with the game and the dungeons in question.

No. No, we are not. We ARE, however, holding them to the expectation to understand that Duty finder is a queue of random people, and as such, progression is defined by a majority decision; Therefore, they can either ride the wave, negotiate a compromise with the party they land in, or leave and try their luck again/form their own party with their own rules.

The only reasons those roulettes exist are so that the new players aren't waiting in impossible queues that can only be filled up by fellow new players at the same point in the questline. This game has the story and lore at it's core and a lot of people do enjoy it and do take it very seriously.

'Impossible' is an extreme overexaggeration, I regularly see people use PF for story purposes. Those who pay attention to story should be more than capable of paying attention to the features of party finder.

There is nothing unreasonable about expecting some form of fix to be applied to a particular design that the devs and playerbase alike unanimously agree was ill-thought out.

No, except PF WAS the fix. So there's that.

I simply don't understand your argument.

Clearly.

Are you that offended about another roulette cluttering up your DF or are you afraid of some 'Slippery Slope' fallacy?

No, and no.

You are presenting no good reason whatsoever against my attempt to find some compromise that benefits both parties and allows them to experience the actual runs themselves as intended.

It is not a compromise when it takes away the very thing the majority joins for- efficient tomes. A compromise would be you giving up something, us giving up something, and ultimately everyone gets most of what they wanted. But we have already gone around in circles on this. The so-called "compromise" on your part is effectively "we won't boot you before the last boss dies". Which is laughable.

Again, I am not suggesting my idea is flawless nor the most ideal solution imaginable, but you have yet to offer any reasonable argument as to why it's a bad idea.

Its more in the light of "Why fix something that isn't broken". PF was implemented as a fix, and is simply being underutilized. that isnt my fault or your fault or even SE's fault per-say. We are trying to urge players to use it early and often, because it IS useful.

Your entire philosophy seems equatable to saying something like the Hall of the Novice was a bad feature and waste of time because "new players should simply learn to play the same way everyone else did, without any ~*~*hand-holding*~*~ ".

Wrong again. I would never argue such a toxic stance. It was a niche that needed to be filled, and now it has been filled. just like PF is a perfectly reasonable option here.

Step 1: open PF and recruit for cm or Praetorium.
Step 2: set the rules you want.
Step 3: get 4-7 more people to join. (why as few as 4? because then you are the majority of the party, and the rules people adhere to are already your rules.
step 4: you get your way.

[WinterLuna]

Duuude007 is basically saying everything I wish to say. I don't even need to post here anymore and just like his posts. +1 to those.

[Niwashi]

People play differently. Some people have jobs, wives, kids, and limited time to get through content, and want to proceed quickly. Others want to sit down with popcorn and analyze every facet of every piece of dialogue before moving on. Both are perfectly valid, but both are also in great conflict with one another.

Which is why it's obtuse to so vehemently argue against a feature to let both groups have access to their own runs, and their own roulette. Group the people in a hurry with other people in a hurry and group the people who want the story with other people who want the story. Avoid this conflict ever coming up by not mixing people with both desires together. That's the request that you're arguing against here.

You'd get even faster runs (assuming that once there's another version for showing the story, SE would likely remove the cutscenes from the fast version of the duty altogether). If your goals were what you keep saying they are, you'd be delighted with that. So why aren't you?

[missybee]

Snippy Dippy Doo

Yeah, but...wouldn't that dilute the pool even further? I mean, I'd imagine as it stands there is only a limited number of people who actually do Story Roulette. Adding an additional "Long-Ass Cutscene Roulette" would likely have very few participants unless the reward was REALLY good.

I guess my point is that you are likely to be in queue for Long-Ass Cutscene Roulette so long that you would probably be better off just attempting to create a PF, thus potentially rendering it moot.

[Duuude007]

Yeah, but...wouldn't that dilute the pool even further? I mean, I'd imagine as it stands there is only a limited number of people who actually do Story Roulette. Adding an additional "Long-Ass Cutscene Roulette" would likely have very few participants unless the reward was REALLY good.

I guess my point is that you are likely to be in queue for Long-Ass Cutscene Roulette so long that you would probably be better off just attempting to create a PF, thus potentially rendering it moot.

Pretty much exactly my argument for this suggestion posed. A better option already exists, unless you can somehow make people consistently flood into a more time-consuming version of the same dungeons, not to mention longer queues... but how?

A point which you have yet to effectively address. 2x, 3x tomes on paper looks pretty, but in actuality? ehhh.... Long story short, I can say with confidence that you will find matters worse, for the sprouts, if it is implemented in the exact fashion in which you have suggested.

[Niwashi]

Yeah, but...wouldn't that dilute the pool even further? I mean, I'd imagine as it stands there is only a limited number of people who actually do Story Roulette. Adding an additional "Long-Ass Cutscene Roulette" would likely have very few participants unless the reward was REALLY good.

I guess my point is that you are likely to be in queue for Long-Ass Cutscene Roulette so long that you would probably be better off just attempting to create a PF, thus potentially rendering it moot.

Well, the suggestion was that the reward would indeed be REALLY good. (I believe tripling the current reward was part of the suggestion last time a figure was mentioned. Double the current had also been mentioned.) So saying it wouldn't have many people unless it's set up the way it's supposed to be set up doesn't mean much. Even so, I suspect the queue time could well be longer. It's typically under 5 minutes now, and extending that to 15 or 30 minutes, or even a bit longer is perfectly fine (though at double or triple the normal reward it would most likely be significantly shorter than that). The people who want it are perfectly willing to wait on it, so long as we can get there eventually, which is the part that's not available now.

If creating a PF took care of the problem, we wouldn't keep having these discussions. The reason for asking is that no feature currently exists that will get a group to do the long version, and as a result, there's no way for anyone wanting to see the story to get the long version (except through incredible luck on who joins them). Sure, you can make a PF party for a slow story driven run, but it still goes into the same duty that DF will put you in, and will generally be run the same way, so you're still just as out of luck as you would with any other random group. (Except that sure, this way you then get to report the people who did it if you want. But it's not like reporting people gives you access to the story either.)

The only way to assure that the rest of the party doesn't rush ahead is to have it be a separate duty where that option isn't available. (Or the other suggestion that's come up, about making it a solo instance, so there is no "rest of the party".)

[Duuude007]

The reason for asking is that no feature currently exists that will make a group do the long version, and as a result, there's no way for anyone wanting to see the story to get the long version.

The only way to assure that the rest of the party doesn't rush ahead is to have it be a separate duty where that option isn't available.

Very misleading inference. You use absolute adjectives such as "only", "impossible" and "always" far too often, my friend.

The most realistic reason that people would WANT to join a CM or praetorium run in PF is if they were there for the rules implied in the expectations. if you have 5 people who support your cause, and 3 choose to ignore it and drive forward, they won't really be able to. Level Sync keeps them from progressing very far, at all.

Majority has the power. Be the majority, dictate the rules.