Duty Roulette (remove the one person limit)

[Taekrys]

-Snoopy-

My, aren't you obnoxious?
It can be both, it's just a matter of perspective.
And you can find the right definition in some cool dictionary, and I could say "Yeah, you're right, it's not the definition, but call it whatever you like and please make it work for you".
It's really not about the grammar, but about the concept. You FEEL punished, 'cause they give you less, 'cause you suffer a loss, 'cause you joined the queue with a friend.

You probably don't consider it a punishment because we, joining with a party, gets the same as before. So since we don't get less, that's still ok.
But from the moment they defined the bonus reward, they defined a new stardard gain, while exclusive to solo joiner (at least until 2.2).
Hence, since 30+Bonus is the new standard, we DO suffer a *comparative* (is this fine?) loss when we get just 30 and we do get *indirectly* (is this ok?) punished for our choice of playing with a friend. Or if not punished, whatever word your dictionary finds fitting is fine too.
It's about the feeling, not about the definition.

And really, people who quotes definitions to prove a point are terribly obnoxious. Be aware of that.
Yeah, yeah, I am too probably.
However, don't focus on me. Focus on the feelings of who likes playing with friend, and not on the words used to explain them.
You'll then be able to understand where the problem is, from our perspective.

[thenewzero]

You probably don't consider it a punishment because we, joining with a party, gets the same as before. So since we don't get less, that's still ok.
But from the moment they defined the bonus reward, they defined a new stardard gain, while exclusive to solo joiner (at least until 2.2).
Hence, since 30+Bonus is the new standard, we DO suffer a *comparative* (is this fine?) loss when we get just 30 and we do get *indirectly* (is this ok?) punished for our choice of playing with a friend. Or if not punished, whatever word your dictionary finds fitting is fine too.
It's about the feeling, not about the definition.

I think the biggest point is that Duty Roulette wasn't added to speed up everyone's progression, which is what you are viewing it as. You already had an advantage over solo players by having someone you can queue with to decrease your queue times, increase the speed / efficiency of your dungeon runs, and increase the success chances of your dungeon runs. Now solo players have a once a day bonus to help offset this advantage.

I don't necessarily see a problem with allowing 2, maybe even 3 to queue together for Duty Roulette, but I definitely hope they don't allow full pre-made groups. That removes all benefits the bonus adds and just allows those with a distinct advantage to progress even faster with no benefit at all to the community.

Keep in mind that I typically play with a group of 4. I was initially upset by this, until I thought *why* that might be the case.

[Taekrys]

Keep in mind that I typically play with a group of 4. I was initially upset by this, until I thought *why* that might be the case.

again u fail to understand the concept of duty roulette. people stuck on que cant progress. if duty roulette was filled with premades then whats the point? might as well make make the rewards go for df too. which will then bring us back to square one

I don't know why you all fastasize about this being some sort of SE plan with some deep motivation behind.
The only reason Lacerta already linked being the right one, is they still couldn't implement a way for more people to queue together.

Plus, I don't understand why you think that this "join a queue for random dungeon and get bonus prize" should be exclusive to not-full party or to solo players.
I would like to remember you that Blizzard did so for years, without players limitation, and no one ever said to them: "Hei, you should give the bonus only to single players who join for it!"
Giving the bonus for a random choice over a specifical choice, always seemed normal to everyone. Why now you say in such a confident way that it "Kills the purpose"? What changes TO YOU, other than waiting a little more for joining?
Why is this a principles argument, instead than just a practical one?

If groups were to join 4/4 for their own queue, you WOULDN'T EVEN MEET THEM. Why do you care how much they get? 'cause you are unhappy they don't feel forced to disband to enter YOUR group as single? So you're okay with the fact they were influenced to play alone, since you can have faster queue by SE convincing them it's better doing so, hence feeling conditioned to play in a way different from what they would elsewhere liked to do?

[Axidrain]

I don't know why you all fastasize about this being some sort of SE plan with some deep motivation behind.
The only reason Lacerta already linked being the right one, is they still couldn't implement a way for more people to queue together.

people were complaining they were stuck with story quests duh. what is df if they cant fit more than one player?

[Taekrys]

people were complaining they were stuck with story quests duh. what is df if they cant fit more than one player?

I agree wholehearted: putting dungeons and raids in the storyline (where the cutscenes always show you alone) was a terrible conceptual mistake.
Not mentioning that on deserted servers, in the future, it will become even harder.
I had a similar problem in 1.0, when I got back playing the last months: finding for a fresh 50 a Group to do just the job-equipment quests, was almost impossible. You had to join a Linkshell and hope some nice guys came to help you - just to get junk equipment, by the way.

However if THAT was the reason behind the Duty Roulette (you congecture, I suppose), they could leave one spot locked as free in all Duty Roulette except max level one. Problem solved, if a problem it was and if SE by any means intended that (and they didn't said).

[Axidrain]

I agree wholehearted: putting dungeons and raids in the storyline (where the cutscenes always show you alone) was a terrible conceptual mistake.
Not mentioning that on deserted servers, in the future, it will become even harder.
I had a similar problem in 1.0, when I got back playing the last months: finding for a fresh 50 a Group to do just the job-equipment quests, was almost impossible. You had to join a Linkshell and hope some nice guys came to help you - just to get junk equipment, by the way.

However if THAT was the reason behind the Duty Roulette (you congecture, I suppose), they could leave one spot locked as free in all Duty Roulette except max level one. Problem solved, if a problem it was and if SE by any means intended that (and they didn't said).

again i will repeat my point. 1 veteran player for every 3 lowbies vs 3 vets 1 lowbie. its basic math.