How the DF 'Withdraw' penalty SHOULD have been done

[AzakaTonnerre]

You finally add another checkbox to ONLY search for in-progress runs. This means you don't have to spam anymore!

This had been discussed before, it is not going to happen. They did not add the in progress box to enable people to get full credit for completing a partial DR. They added it to help people who had someone leave or DC. Why should you get a button that basically says "I want full credit without doing a full dungeon only"? How many people do you think (mainly tanks) would select anything but in-progress only?

I have a better idea, if you don't want a penalty and do not have time for the possibility of having to do a full run don't queue. It's hard enough for DPS to get a party without half the tanks/healers hitting the in progress only button.

And before you say it. Yes Warrior is my main, and yes I usually DR as it. Just my two cents. I do however agree with your increasing penalty suggestion.

[Giantbane]

You CAN'T add an "In Progress OnlY' box or those NINs would have even LONGER queues because tanks and healers would have a tendency to pick In Progress over a new run. You simply can't further dilute the DF pool that way.

This had been discussed before, it is not going to happen. They did not add the in progress box to enable people to get full credit for completing a partial DR. They added it to help people who had someone leave or DC. Why should you get a button that basically says "I want full credit without doing a full dungeon only"? How many people do you think (mainly tanks) would select anything but in-progress only?

DF depends on people from all roles queueing up, if half the tanks or healers choose in-progress only then the queue times would double for any player who would queue for a full run.

So yes, your option does cause harm..

Sure you can. There are only going to be so many "in progress" runs available at any given time. If every tank only clicks "in progress only" then they're going to be stuck waiting around in line with each other until some other tank gets kicked or drops out. If there are too many, then they're going to end up waiting in the queue longer than if they just selected "join" normally. The other thing about "in progress" is that the wait time would be very unpredictable. They risk waiting longer, only to end up stuck in a 0/3 dungeon so they've actually lost time. And to make sure that they can't just fish for 2/3 dungeons, they should hide the actual progress, IE: just show 0/1 no matter what (as ST/CT already do).

Problem is, many players WILL NOT queue for certain categories as is. However, if they were guaranteed some kind of in progress run, they might be enticed to do so. High Level & Low Level come to mind (I won't touch either on my tank or healer unless I'm bored, rewards aren't nearly good enough). This effect will likely create enough competition to discourage too many who currently are ok with running full dungeons to switch to "in progress only", further minimizing any effect on the queue.

And the final thing to consider is this will draw some DPS away from being in the full dungeon queues. This means, as a DPS, there will be a little less competition for full dungeon queues, further minimizing any detrimental effect on the queue.

However, it will get ALL of the in progress fishers out of any queue you will be in (assuming you are ok with full dungeons). This means the only other problematic queue participants are trolls, and for them you can hand down a much milder penalty because you just need to prevent them from spamming the queue (like 10min lockout and penalty decays after 1-2hrs). It also should be fairly easy to automatically identify trollish behavior (multiple queue/withdraw that occurs daily or something like that). They're already doing it for RMT, so I can't imagine it should be too much of a stretch to flag any repeat offenders and hand out disciplinary actions to those few.

So, yes, i think adding "in progress only" would be a MUCH better solution than what they currently have.