So people are defending the msq dc exploit

[Iscah]

Did you actually wait?! I had 7min wait time turn into over 50 minutes on more than one occasion. "Wait time" doesn't mean much, it's just a prediction.

I didn't wait for the DPS queue, because I wanted to level my tank, and didn't want or need to take up a DPS slot. I did wait as tank, and did get in quickly.

"Average wait time" means exactly that - an average of how long people have recently had to wait in the queue. There can always be anomalies where a lot of people queued at once by chance, or a stretch where nobody joins the queue with the right classes to make up a full party, but on average it should be accurate. Though admittedly I should have done it a few times over an hour or so to see if it was varying or staying fairly constant.

Generally, there are two points where the prediction can be badly out: at a time where a decreasing number of people are joining the queue (eg. as more people finish up later at night), and certain times when you queue directly for a single dungeon.

Specifically, if you queue for a dungeon and it says the average wait is "less than five minutes", it's quite likely this is incorrect - because if you're the only person to queue for it over the period it calculates from, it has the unhelpful quirk of still giving you "the average" of how long all the people have been waiting. You've been waiting for one minute? The average wait time is less than five minutes!

On the other hand, if it does give you an estimate with a specific number of minutes, I'm fairly sure it's going to be an accurate indicator of how long other people have been waiting. Again, not a guarantee that you'll have the same wait time, but likely to be similar. Busier roulettes will be increasingly constant.

[SturmChurro]

I've been queuing it as samurai lately and actually getting in, in about 15 minutes ironically.

[Iscah]

Except, as I said, it is not an exploit. And it can very well happen by sheer accident too, not only by players intent.

I don't see how the fact that it can happen by accident, makes it "not an exploit" if you do it deliberately.

It's exploiting the way that cutscenes are triggered (approach point X, cutscene activates, the system ticks it as 'done' and won't replay/resume it if you drop out and reconnect). By doing that deliberately to get around the enforced playback of cutscenes, and continue playing when you should not be able to, that is an exploit.


Interestingly, I went to get the dictionary definition for the general meaning of the word, and found there's a specific one regarding videogames. Quoting the whole entry, bolding is mine.

exploit (2)

to utilize, especially for profit; turn to practical account: to exploit a business opportunity.
to use selfishly for one's own ends: employers who exploit their workers.
to advance or further through exploitation; promote: He exploited his new movie through a series of guest appearances.

noun Digital Technology.

a flaw in hardware or software that is vulnerable to hacking or other cyberattacks.
a piece of software that takes advantage of such a flaw to compromise a computer system or network.
(in a video game) the use of a bug or flaw in game design to a player’s advantage or to the disadvantage of other players.

It is a flaw in the game programming, and by doing it deliberately you are using it to your advantage, and the possible disadvantage of other players. (ie. a new player who is now missing out on the fight, and getting its dialogue out-of-order over the middle of the preceding cutscene.)

[Pells]

You can easily make it so the enemy will not attack a player that is locked in place due to the cutscene.

That's a lot of extra work that can not only be prone to being bugged, but also possibly exploited somehow.

How it worked before they made cutscenes unskippable: everyone in a cutscene was made invulnerable to damage. We didn't actually disappear from the fight. It could have been exploited, but most tanks would leave cutscenes as soon as possible.



It shouldn't be too much extra work to extend the invunlerability to the same duration as a movement lock since the mechanism already exists.


Personally, I think the problem will be loss of control. Seeing your character and being unable to do anything would be super aggravating, just like any kind of crowd control used against players is very unpopular. Things like being slowed while running past a mob. I can see this being taken even worse than just being forced to watch the cutscene.

[TaranTatsuuchi]

The option was available BEFORE implementing this. You could have used party finder for "No skipping cutscenes" and go with that. You could get your friends/Free Company members join with you and not skip the cutscenes/not fighting while you watch them. You had options of not skipping cutscenes...or skipping cutscenes. There are no such options now.

The lone fact that this was not used is proof of how few people actually give a darn about watching the cutscenes and fighting the mobs as they go.
...

A genuinly new player can not possibly know to use party finder for these dungeons based on just the information provided by the game.

They are directed to use the duty finder, just like every dungeon before.
Thus, duty finder has to default to as the devs intended.



A genuinly new player can not know what is involved with these dungeons.
Anyone joining the roulette knows exactly what these dungeons entail, and by joining have agreed to that possibility.

But, those people refused to allow others to experience it as the devs intended...
So, the devs were required to force the matter.


I agree that making it a solo instance would have been better, but that's not what we got.
So, I have to say report those people for using a flaw in the game's system to go directly against the devs intentions with their change.

There is no room for debate here, they are literally doing the opposite of what the devs want done, as shown by their choice of change.

[Zephera]

There is no room for debate here, they are literally doing the opposite of what the devs want done, as shown by their choice of change.

Once again, just because the devs intend it that way does not necessarily make something good, they're not infallible.

[TaranTatsuuchi]

Once again, just because the devs intend it that way does not necessarily make something good, they're not infallible.

Did you miss the part where I said making them solo instances would have been the better option?

Good design or not, the exploiters are going directly against the devs wishes.

[Zephera]

Did you miss the part where I said making them solo instances would have been the better option?

Good design or not, the exploiters are going directly against the devs wishes.

What does your first part have to do with it? Your logic of being completely unquestioning of questionable design choices is ridiculous and I'm pointing that out. If the devs approached the game with your mindset that they are never to be criticised, then nothing would ever change in this game, for better or worse.

[JohnSpawnVFX]

A genuinly new player can not possibly know to use party finder for these dungeons based on just the information provided by the game.

They are directed to use the duty finder, just like every dungeon before.
Thus, duty finder has to default to as the devs intended.



A genuinly new player can not know what is involved with these dungeons.
Anyone joining the roulette knows exactly what these dungeons entail, and by joining have agreed to that possibility.

But, those people refused to allow others to experience it as the devs intended...
So, the devs were required to force the matter.


I agree that making it a solo instance would have been better, but that's not what we got.
So, I have to say report those people for using a flaw in the game's system to go directly against the devs intentions with their change.

There is no room for debate here, they are literally doing the opposite of what the devs want done, as shown by their choice of change.

When are they supposed to learn how PF works then? At 70? There's no prompt then talking about it nor a GM or player will automatically walk up to the person and explain how it works.

Following the logic conclusion to that argument, how do people at 70 know how PF works then?

So, why is lvl 50 a bad time to learn about PF? Being new =/= being lazy and ignorant, specially when people carry that excuse all the way to 70 so they don't have to bother learning anything.

Coddling new players so they don't have to bother learning how the game works is the root of half, if not most of the game's problems.

[TaranTatsuuchi]

What does your first part have to do with it? Your logic of being completely unquestioning of questionable design choices is ridiculous and I'm pointing that out. If the devs approached the game with your mindset that they are never to be criticised, then nothing would ever change in this game, for better or worse.

The thing not up for debate is the fact that doing the cutscene skip is exploitation and against the devs wishes.

I never claimed their design decisions weren't debatable.
In fact, my statement saying making them solo would have been the better option is debating against their design decision.

When are they supposed to learn how PF works then? At 70? There's no prompt then talking about it nor a GM or player will automatically walk up to the person and explain how it works.

Following the logic conclusion to that argument, how do people at 70 know how PF works then?

So, why is lvl 50 a bad time to learn about PF? Being new =/= being lazy and ignorant, specially when people carry that excuse all the way to 70 so they don't have to bother learning anything.

Coddling new players so they don't have to bother learning how the game works is the root of half, if not most of the game's problems.

I never claimed that those things shouldn't be explained.
But, since they're not, it cannot be expected that new players know about them when discussing things like this.