Change The Rules For Leaving Dungeons (aka Why People Insta-Quit Castrum Meridianum)

[AnimaAnimus]

whew, the Karening is strong is this thread lol

[Canada_bangs]

I wouldn't be apposed to it being an hour. Like if you have to go like that anyway chances are you're gonna be gone for over an hour anyway so an hour seems fair enough.

[Fynlar]

The whole point was to stop people from jumping in and out over and over looking for in-progress.

That was why they added the three strikes thing for declining a readied DF party. (If you ask me though, they could have solved this issue simpler by simply not showing the player whether it's an in-progress group that they got; I would think the three strikes thing had to have involved more programming effort...)

DF lockouts for bailing from a group were a thing before they added the three strikes thing, if I'm not mistaken.

Seriously - do you all have people bailing on your duty all the time?

Yes. It's extremely frequent.

Which just goes to show...

There are consequences. You leave you get 30 minute penalty. I'm seriously having a hard time understanding why people think there aren't consequences already or why more is needed.

I'm seriously having a hard time understanding why you don't understand.

The 30 minute lockout isn't a deterrent. To refer to it as "consequences" is practically a joke.

[Frizze]

Seriously - do you all have people bailing on your duty all the time?

Yes. It's extremely frequent.

You say this is extremely frequent. The other people in this thread disagree(personally i almost never see it). And all of this is anecdotal anyway, not factual evidence. The devs have access to reports that show them if this is an actual issue. If it is, i imagine they will consider changing the DF cooldown. If its not, then some people need to get over themselves a bit.

Though i will agree with everyone saying this wont fix the "problem". If they made it significantly worse to leave, the people who dont want to be there will afk/dc until you kick them anyway. And you cant really add a greater penalty to a kick, because that is a surefire recipe for griefing.

[Fynlar]

Though i will agree with everyone saying this wont fix the "problem". If they made it significantly worse to leave, the people who dont want to be there will afk/dc until you kick them anyway. And you cant really add a greater penalty to a kick, because that is a surefire recipe for griefing.

This is why I said that perhaps a different approach needs to be taken with the "punishment" too.

For instance, people here and in other threads proposed the idea of roulettes locking to whatever duty is first rolled in a given day if they are bailed on, meaning they will either need to suck it up and deal with whatever they rolled or forfeit their roulette bonus for the day. At least something like that might actually start somewhat resembling a deterrent.

[Tlamila]

This is why I said that perhaps a different approach needs to be taken with the "punishment" too.

For instance, people here and in other threads proposed the idea of roulettes locking to whatever duty is first rolled in a given day if they are bailed on, meaning they will either need to suck it up and deal with whatever they rolled or forfeit their roulette bonus for the day. At least something like that might actually start somewhat resembling a deterrent.

Sure recipe to make people stop doing msq roulette once and for all. Already nowadays so few want to do it that queues are crazy compared to other roulettes, if you add that good luck with it.
But if having neverending queues, no raplecement if somebody leaves for whatever reason instead of the current quick replacements and all is better for you than the eventual having to take 1 second for a replacement or gasp, having to run a super overleveled instance with a few persons less for 10 mins...not sure what to say.

[Jojoya]

Yes. It's extremely frequent.

So what if it is (which is it isn't)? Someone bails. Party leader gets asked if they want the party to be refilled. Party leader clicks "Yes". New player added to party a couple of minutes later.

Forcing greater and greater penalties empowers players to hold other player hostage to their whims. Let's not take the game in that direction. If someone wants to quit a party, let them. The group is already better off rather than being stuck with someone that does not want to be in that group and will only make things even more unpleasant.

This is why I said that perhaps a different approach needs to be taken with the "punishment" too.

For instance, people here and in other threads proposed the idea of roulettes locking to whatever duty is first rolled in a given day if they are bailed on, meaning they will either need to suck it up and deal with whatever they rolled or forfeit their roulette bonus for the day. At least something like that might actually start somewhat resembling a deterrent.

So I should be locked out of duty roulette for the entire day because the groceries I ordered for delivery show up 2 hours in advance of my requested delivery window and I have to go afk 15 minutes to accept delivery then put away the perishables before I can return to my computer?

No thank you.

[Fynlar]

Sure recipe to make people stop doing msq roulette once and for all. Already nowadays so few want to do it that queues are crazy compared to other roulettes, if you add that good luck with it.

Ah yes, just like how everyone said MSQ roulette was doomed after they put in the forced cutscenes too, right?

It would be fine. Stop Chicken Little-ing.

So what if it is (which is it isn't)? Someone bails. Party leader gets asked if they want the party to be refilled. Party leader clicks "Yes". New player added to party a couple of minutes later.

Maybe in CM/Prae that's usually what happens, sure. In my own experience in most other content, it's usually a much longer wait than that, and if the person that leaves is in a crucial role it tends to completely stop progress of the content, which tends to lead to other people bailing and the party falling apart.

I've personally lost count of how many times I've had immediate tank bail + party disband in Aurum Vale, for instance. Way to waste my DPS queue time.

So I should be locked out of duty roulette for the entire day because the groceries I ordered for delivery show up 2 hours in advance of my requested delivery window and I have to go afk 15 minutes to accept delivery then put away the perishables before I can return to my computer?

No thank you.

Read more carefully. The proposition was that once your roulette picks something for the day, it will continue to roll that same content until it's cleared, not that you would just lose your roulette. This will discourage people who bail on an instance simply because it's the one they don't want to play (because they would just get it again) and would therefore have to weigh biting the bullet and doing it anyway against missing out on their roulette bonus for the day.

THAT would come closer to being an actual deterrent toward this insta-bail behavior, not the joke of a 30 minute lockout we have now that everyone either doesn't care about (or bypasses by "afking" or being disruptive enough to the instance to get kicked).

[Arillyn]

The 30 minute lockout isn't a deterrent. To refer to it as "consequences" is practically a joke.

Consequences - noun - a result or effect of an action or condition.

Someone leaves a duty (an action) and they get locked out for 30 minutes (the result of said such action). Therefore a consequence. (Note I didn't say punishment as some people in this thread are going on about. Nor did I call it a deterrent.)

As for it being a deterrent? Maybe for some - probably not for those who really feel they need to leave for whatever reason, I'll give you that. I personally very rarely leave something I have queued for. It has to be for a real emergency (very rare) OR the group is such that I just can't even anymore (even more rare). But if I have to leave for either of those reasons then I just accept the 30 minute penalty (if a real emergency it doesn't matter anyway because I can't play for a while - and if because of the group then I accept my 30 minute penalty as a price to pay for my sanity).

Anyway we can go round and round and we aren't going to convince each other of our own positions. I'll just say I agree to disagree with you. As Frizze said - it's all anecdotal anyway (you say people bail extremely frequently, and I have rarely had it happen). The devs have the data to see if it's a real issue and, if they deem it is, they'll address it like they did before (current penalties, lockouts, etc.)

Edit: Just thought of this - the suggestion that you leave an instance from a roulette and you will only ever get that duty going forward in that roulette until you complete it. While I personally don't have an issue with that - how does that work if I queue for leveling roulette with a friend and the last dungeon I did was for that roulette I left (say Stone Vigil) and my friend had left their last leveling roulette dungeon (say Aurum Vale) - how does the game know what to put us in? I can see that being a technical issue.

[Gugnir]

No amount of haranguing will convince people to stay if they don't want to since they pay the same sub you do for access to the same content. Nothing will prevent me from logging off the game and onto an alt with no restrictions from doing dungeons.

To further add to this, it would be better if they gave an increased incentive for players to stay through the slog that is Castrum rather than punishing them. Bottom line, Praetorium gives more experience and even though you sit through 45 mins of cutscenes its generally a no nonsense dungeon. If they made the experience similar or even, you would probably see less people leave myself included.