Why is "Duty Roulette" a solo feature?

[Eidolon]

Regardless of the fact that they will be allowing people to join it as more than 1 person later on(could max out at like 3 however) Allowing a single player is still the most optimal for filling groups that need people. As soon as you allow a second, you start excluding people.

For example, 3 people have been put together in DF for say, Copperbell Mines. 2 DD and a healer. You and a tank friend queue as a duo, those 3 still wait, even if they were waiting longer than whatever two people you DO get.

Great point, but what if those same people who were going to que, now do not que because they don't feel it's worth it to que if they can't play together? You just effectively took the two out of the que completely.

[Shizato]

Great point, but what if those same people who were going to que, now do not que because they don't feel it's worth it to que if they can't play together? You just effectively took the two out of the que completely.

then the queue without them will be shorter for all those players in the queue... math is fun

[ispano]

Great point, but what if those same people who were going to que, now do not que because they don't feel it's worth it to que if they can't play together? You just effectively took the two out of the que completely.

Except those people wouldn't have solo queue'd in the first place, no? Meaning nothing changed on their part, except OTHER people will.

Say you have 100 people, who prior to 2.1, only ever went in groups. Now with the roulette, say 75 of those people refuse to use it because they can't go in a group. The other 25 however, will. So even if those 75 don't, that's still 25 more people to fill spots with.

[Eidolon]

Except those people wouldn't have solo queue'd in the first place, no? Meaning nothing changed on their part, except OTHER people will.

Say you have 100 people, who prior to 2.1, only ever went in groups. Now with the roulette, say 75 of those people refuse to use it because they can't go in a group. The other 25 however, will. So even if those 75 don't, that's still 25 more people to fill spots with.

Right, but you're taking the common team of Tank+Heals out of the que's, so in my opinion, this actually hurts the DPS more than anyone else. Sure, sometimes a Tank + DPS, Heals + DPS will go on, but I know a lot of people who tend to team up with the two jobs people see as 'most important' not to reduce que times, but to ensure that you covered for the percieved 'hardest jobs.'

In the end, neither side has substantial numbers. This is pure theorycraft.

[ispano]

Right, but your taking the common team of Tank+Heals out of the que's, so in my opinion, this actually hurts the DPS more than anyone else. Sure, sometimes a Tank + DPS, Heals + DPS will go on, but I know a lot of people who tend to team up with the two jobs people see as 'most important' not to reduce que times, but to ensure that you covered for the percieved 'hardest jobs.'

In the end, neither side has substantial numbers. This is pure theorycraft.

Again, people who won't queue solo with the roulette, didn't likely do it before either, so there's 0 loss for the most part. Because there are those who will, even Tanks and Healers. I know some in some of my LS, never did a DF outside of a premade before 2.1, but with the roulette, they do it when others aren't on due to the bonuses.

Regardless, a single unit is easier to place than a duo. Like the idea I saw in another thread and posted here with the deck of cards.

[Ildur]

Say you have 100 people, who prior to 2.1, only ever went in groups. Now with the roulette, say 75 of those people refuse to use it because they can't go in a group. The other 25 however, will. So even if those 75 don't, that's still 25 more people to fill spots with.

I find it funny that you are excluding 75 people here when before you said:

Allowing a single player is still the most optimal for filling groups that need people. As soon as you allow a second, you start excluding people.

So on one hand you say the problem is avoiding exclusion (and hence it's better to have people in single units than in groups). But on the other you are excluding 75 people. So it's not really a problem of 'excluding' people, but of excluding the less number of people possible, correct?

But then, where are you getting these numbers? Because as fine as the theory is, we don't know the reality of it. You arbitrarily picked a percentage. Let's pick another arbitrary number. What if of those hundred only 10 queue? Are we benefitting more groups with those 10 than if we allowed the hundred to queue as groups?

Let's imagine that this is the case. From the hundred, only 10 queue. Since parties are formed by 4 people, that means other 30 people are benefited by those 10. Now let's imagine that of the original 100, if there were no restrictions to the roulette, 52 would go in pairs and 48 in groups of three. 48 people in groups of 3 means 16 groups with 1 spot to fill, so the trios are benefiting 16 people. We also have the duos: 52 people in groups of 2 means 26 groups with 2 spaces to fill, so they beneift 52 other people. In conclusion: The system with restrictions benefited 40 people. The system without restrictions benefits 68. So the current system is 28% less efficient than the unrestricted system.

See how by arbitrarily picking new numbers now the solo restriction seems like a bad idea?

Let's change them again just for the fun of maths: Of the 100, 30 queue solo. Again, each of them will end in groups of 4. So 90 people are benefited by the current system. If we kept the previous (arbitrary) assumption of how many trios and duos those 100 people would form if unrestricted, then we end up with the current system being 22% more efficient than an unrestricted one. Awesome! Except I don't think it's accurate to pretend that there will be basically the same amount of trios and duos, because duos are easier to form and, hence, there will be more. So let's (arbitrarily) tweak the numbers again: from 100, 76 form duos and 24 trios. 76 people in duos means 38 groups missing 2 people, so there's 76 people benefiting from the duos already. 24 people in trios means 8 groups missing 1 person, so they benefit 24 people. In conclusion: the actual system benefits 90 people, while the unrestricted system benefits 84. The difference in efficiency is of 6% in favor of the current system.

We could further tweak this by picking (arbitrary) numbers that denoted how many trios or duos would end up with no players to fill them, but then it would be all (arbitrary) because we have no numbers. Unless we ran a study covering the thousands and not just the "people in my linkshells".

So yeah, if we use arbitrary numbers, anyone can win. Instead let's go with this: the current system may or may not be getting you more people in duties, but what you are certainly doing is penalazing people for wanting to play together with friends and acquitances.

[ispano]

Those 75 people are already excluding themselves. They made the choice to group up instead of go after the roulette rewards. The term you want is opportunity cost. People want to claim that because they want to play with friends, they are being punished. Which is false. Nothing has changed from 2.0 to 2.1 for people who play in groups. The roulette rewards are meant to REWARD people for getting OUT of premade groups. People who feel it's a punishment aren't thinking properly. Again, opportunity cost. You can't do both, and there are pros and cons to each. If you choose one, you lose out on the benefits of the other. It's not a punishment.

Not to mention, you have to look at how DF works. It will throw people into a group as soon as they are available, so your groups of 2 and 3 cannot get matched with people already in groups that won't fit. It also means if those people have been waiting a while, they might be passed up by people that queued later.

Go read the deck of cards example earlier in the post, it's in another thread about this too. The larger the premade that's not a full group, the more difficult is for DF to make complete groups.

[Evenstar]

SE overdid it in FFXI by forcing people to group for almost all content (if not all ...).

Now SE is overdoing it again by making overthing soloable. Hell you can't enter CT with FC people, you can't do roulette with FC people, dailies are solo content also .... It is a MMORPG. If people want to solo, fine let them solo, but don't force people to not play with their FC.

[Axidrain]

SE overdid it in FFXI by forcing people to group for almost all content (if not all ...).

Now SE is overdoing it again by making overthing soloable. Hell you can't enter CT with FC people, you can't do roulette with FC people, dailies are solo content also .... It is a MMORPG. If people want to solo, fine let them solo, but don't force people to not play with their FC.

i think the reason why they made ct that way is the same reason why duty roulette was introduced. for those who play solo. there are quite a few of them apparently.

[ispano]

i think the reason why they made ct that way is the same reason why duty roulette was introduced. for those who play solo. there are quite a few of them apparently.

Actually, for CT, I think it was more that they didn't have the ability to make an alliance outside of the instance ready yet. Also, many people who solo, don't do it because they want to solo, though some do. Sometimes you just don't have any friends on for various reasons, and you want to get something done. You shouldn't have to have a huge friend base to get anything done.