Lock out is to heavy handed

[Souljacker]

Only the players who make posts asking for DF lock out to be changed are the ones who constantly withdrew from queue.

That's not true. I wanted it changed as well, but I wanted it changed in an intelligent fashion. Just adding a blanket penalty to everyone doesn't address the issue in a meaningful way. The queue's design is flawed overall. That's what needs to change - not an arbitrary punishment. This is just a bandaid that hurts folks legitimately missing queues as much as the people who were fishing. It's just not a smart way to go about it.

[Giantbane]

IThe proper solution is just filtering people into random dungeons randomly, without letting them see the number of bosses defeated, and without letting them select whether they will deign to enter an in-progess run or not.

People should be able to select that they want to do the full dungeon only if they want.

That's not true. I wanted it changed as well, but I wanted it changed in an intelligent fashion. Just adding a blanket penalty to everyone doesn't address the issue in a meaningful way. The queue's design is flawed overall. That's what needs to change - not an arbitrary punishment. This is just a bandaid that hurts folks legitimately missing queues as much as the people who were fishing. It's just not a smart way to go about it.

this

[Domira]

That's not true. I wanted it changed as well, but I wanted it changed in an intelligent fashion. Just adding a blanket penalty to everyone doesn't address the issue in a meaningful way. The queue's design is flawed overall. That's what needs to change - not an arbitrary punishment. This is just a bandaid that hurts folks legitimately missing queues as much as the people who were fishing. It's just not a smart way to go about it.

So how does it happen three times in a row?

[Souljacker]

So how does it happen three times in a row?

Some folks in the longer thread already outlines several legitimate ways that you could end up with three in a row, so I won't go into it here. I'll just say that I'm never in favor of punishing players to solve a problem. The correct way is ALWAYS to look at the design, and then adjust the design so that the behavior is not possible\desirable. Adding a penalty in this way was the lazy way out, and all it will do is give SE the reputation of designing games that are unnecessarily harsh to players. YoshiP has come so far in turning XIV's reputation around - he doesn't need to take steps backwards.

[Teryaani]

YoshiP has come so far in turning XIV's reputation around - he doesn't need to take steps backwards.

This isn't backward. This is the development team answering a complaint from the players. As you can see by the posters around you, not everyone thinks it's too harsh. It seemed pretty even handed to me.

[MaethusXion]

My only issue is that it penalizes the entire group if you go in with a party(of any size, 2-8), and not just the person(s) that didn't click or the one that hit withdraw. It's not right if I click ready and someone else in the party doesn't click or they ignore it...

[Corfish]

snip

Just because someone disagrees with you that doesn't make them or the community toxic. Overall, I'd say FFXIV has one of the least toxic communities. They're tired of people who can't accept their queues ruining queue times for everyone. This is fairly reasonable. If you can't have enough respect to make sure the in game activities you choose to do in queue won't prevent you from accepting your duty, then why should the game have to accommodate that? I know how queue times are, so I make sure to do things I can easily bail on to not inconvenience a larger group of players. Crap happens. Crap shouldn't happen often enough to where this is an issue.

[Souljacker]

Just because someone disagrees with you that doesn't make them or the community toxic.

I don't base it on disagreement alone. I base it on the past few months of watching things like hunts polarize the community, mercs overrun the servers, and crafters monopolize the markets. I, too, have a rather pleasant microcosm within my Free Company and can often forget the community at large, but the fact that players would rather see other players get punished than a design flaw get fixed is telling.

Let me say that again: a DESIGN flaw caused this to be possible in the first place.

If players were filtered into dungeons randomly when they queue for a random dungeon, there would never have been this situation with tanks and healers fishing for in-progress runs, and this would have never been discussed, at all. I will never agree that a penalty in lieu of correcting a design flaw is the way to go. Only time will tell if SE's gamble pays off or not. So far, it seems to be yet another polarizing issue as evidenced by the fact there are a few threads going on about it.

[Teryaani]

If players were filtered into dungeons randomly when they queue for a random dungeon, there would never have been this situation with tanks and healers fishing for in-progress runs, and this would have never been discussed, at all. I will never agree that a penalty in lieu of correcting a design flaw is the way to go. Only time will tell if SE's gamble pays off or not. So far, it seems to be yet another polarizing issue as evidenced by the fact there are a few threads going on about it.

The random distribution won't fix the issue. A player that has no interest in a dungeon or that dungeon at that stage is going to drop, eat the penalty, and do something else for a half hour having wasted everyone's time in the progress.

If anything you'll have more players with 30 minute lockouts.

[RoninDarkchild]

Sounds more like ppl who like to cherry pick Duty Ques are trying to come up with any lame excuse to get a good thing changed. You do not "accidentally" withdraw or miss a que in a single day, THREE TIMES!!!!!!!! That is NO accident. Deal with it. If you do not have the time to dedicate to DF, then do not ruin the enjoyment of everyone else waiting, by using it.