A plea for further refinement of the Duty Roulette algorithm

[Risvertasashi]

There is no point doing the roullete if you want to do a level relevant dungeon, the roullete bonus exp to compensate for the gap in player level and dungeon level, the closer the dungeon level is to player level the less you are getting from the bonus. So if you are level 67 and get Doma Castle for leveling roulletes you are getting a very, very small insignificant bonus because you are getting level appropriate exp from the dungeon. Not worth the dev resources to change this.

The point is that very low level dungeons are extremely boring.

This could also be addressed by changing level sync to not take away access to abilities, though.

[Rilifane]

Then you would be better off queing for specific dungeon, you don’t want to get a level relevant dungeon for your roulletes because it almost invalidates the roulette bonus exp...

There is literally nothing lost from Rilifane's suggestion. They already said if there's a low level in the party then it's fine. But if there isn't, there's no reason the roulette can't select a higher level dungeon instead. There is nothing to be lost at all.

Thank you!
You actually got it.

I'm not better off queuing for specific dungeons because as I wrote, I don't mind running Sastasha for the 938459th time if I see a low level character in the party. I have no problem being filler material for people who need to progress through their MSQ or needing low level dungeons for a new class.
But if it's crystal clear that nobody in the party queued for this dungeon, there is no need to still hit low level dungeons with a relatively high chance. ARR has more dungeons than HW/ SB, the bulk of them being in a level range where you spent most of your time pushing one button.
Evening this out by raising the chance to hit a higher level dungeon if and only if nobody in the party specificially queued for a low level dungeon would be a welcome change.

[SerLuke]

The point is that very low level dungeons are extremely boring.

This could also be addressed by changing level sync to not take away access to abilities, though.

And it could be addressed by queing for a level relevant dungeon if you find potentially getting a low level dungeon boring. I mean they are called roulletes which implies risk in that you don’t know what you are going to get, if someone had an idea of what they would be getting roulletes would cease to be roulletes.

[alimdia]

There is no point doing the roullete if you want to do a level relevant dungeon, the roullete bonus exp to compensate for the gap in player level and dungeon level, the closer the dungeon level is to player level the less you are getting from the bonus. So if you are level 67 and get Doma Castle for leveling roulletes you are getting a very, very small insignificant bonus because you are getting level appropriate exp from the dungeon. Not worth the dev resources to change this.

It's not insignificant.

[SerLuke]

It's not insignificant.

Getting what like 100-200k if you get Doma Castle at 67 when you need 8 mil to level up is pretty insignificant you aren’t even getting 10% of your level at that point. The bonus is there if you get a lower level dungeon since you are getting less exp from the mob the roulette makes up for it by giving you a bigger bonus. Surely not worth altering the roulette algorithm potentially causing other issues. Even the OP says this would result in higher que times so no thank you.

[Lambdafish]

There is literally nothing lost from Rilifane's suggestion. They already said if there's a low level in the party then it's fine. But if there isn't, there's no reason the roulette can't select a higher level dungeon instead. There is nothing to be lost at all.

This would entirely depend how the roulette works on a technical level. What you are asking for is for the roulette to check the level of all participants and run an additional algorithm to work out which dungeon is best to pick. And at that point we come to this:

I remember the last time they tried adjusting the DF algorithm it actually made que times worse and they had to revert, probably best to keep it as is.

We don't know how difficult this is to implement, so we then have to ask, is it worth it? There is never no reason not to do it, because the system needs to be altered, and it is already a complex system that makes up the entire backbone of the game.

[Taramin]

I'm pretty sure the reason they lockout our abilities at lower levels is due to A, What little balance they have in the first place, and B, You and I KNOW Elitists would kick unsynced lowbies due to having less abilities available over a synced high level.

[Violet_Galaxy]

While it's obvious if someone hasn't unlocked a certain piece of content or first timers that you're queuing in there but I'm more curious about vets that have unlocked everything. I am curious to just how the algorithm does work because lately I've been getting more Castrum Abania than I'd like. New people/vets, it didn't matter. I would always get that particular dungeon. Is there really an algorithm to this when it comes to anyone who has everything unlocked or is it more rng based?

[DrWho2010]

sometimes rngesus is rngesus. if you get a dungeon you hate, suck it up or leave and take the penalty. you do roulettes for the bonus, not for whatever it is you're going to get.

[Taramin]

While it's obvious if someone hasn't unlocked a certain piece of content or first timers that you're queuing in there but I'm more curious about vets that have unlocked everything. I am curious to just how the algorithm does work because lately I've been getting more Castrum Abania than I'd like. New people/vets, it didn't matter. I would always get that particular dungeon. Is there really an algorithm to this when it comes to anyone who has everything unlocked or is it more rng based?

I THINK I heard somewhere ages ago, that the queue actually picks a duty first, then fills a party into it, assuming no specific-queues are needing people.