Missed ONE >>1<< Duty Finder commence, and now I have 30 minutes penalty.

[Fellisin]

Then what about that collective pooling crap you were on about that makes singular strikes oh so awful?

What you described is NOT what I said. If you wish to misrepresent what I said. Go ahead. But don't expect me to agree with your misrepresentations.

Ah, yeah. The harsher strike idea was just my way of trying to stop people from "trading strikes". Which I honestly don't care about, but other people seem to be worried about it.

Not really worried. But I would say that the joint strike system is done to discourage "trading strikes".

Fellsin sounds like he's saying it's AWFUL that a single person could be in a group of 3 and that person gets to be in a group that withdraws 6 times with nobody getting a penalty.

They're also sort of ignoring that if that group of three just queued as individuals, they'd all get to withdraw from the queue 6 total times (2 for each of them) and nobody gets a penalty. So the affect upon the queue is not any different whatsoever. But those sort of facts are apparently not all that important.

No not saying it AWFUL. I'm suggesting it why the present system exists.

Yes they could do it individually. Not ignoring that at all. But within a party someone can get someone to take a strike for them thus avoiding a thirdstrike themselves & lock out. But I guess ignoring facts like people do ask friends for favours like take a strike would happen if possible.

As far as i know a locked out person cannot queue in a party. They will be ineligible. So Fellisin, your argument about trolling is flawed.

Considering that's not even my "argument" or even close to what I was saying.

[Elim]

I'm sorry, I mean if an individual withdraws from a group, I don't believe that you need to give the individual a harsher penalty than if they withdrew from an individual because it's not any worse in terms of people having to wait around.

But I do agree with you that giving the whole party a strike does discourage group play with strangers, which is not good for the game. Only the person that hit withdraw should get a penalty, whatever that penalty happens to be.

Ah, yeah. The harsher strike idea was just my way of trying to stop people from "trading strikes". Which I honestly don't care about, but other people seem to be worried about it.

[Giantbane]

Then what about that collective pooling crap you were on about that makes singular strikes oh so awful?

Fellsin sounds like he's saying it's AWFUL that a single person could be in a group of 3 and that person gets to be in a group that withdraws 6 times with nobody getting a penalty.

They're also sort of ignoring that if that group of three just queued as individuals, they'd all get to withdraw from the queue 6 total times (2 for each of them) and nobody gets a penalty. So the affect upon the queue is not any different whatsoever. But those sort of facts are apparently not all that important.

[MilesSaintboroguh]

That's an insult to rocks

[Roris]

So let's say 8 players in a queue troll party start withdrawing or not clicking commence. If the system didn't penalize the entire party that would be 24 strikes total, 3 per party member, instead the way it works now those withdrawals are reduced to 3 right? Except there's also nothing stopping those people from simply queuing by themselves and making those 24 withdrawals happen anyway.

So really there's no reason to penalize legitimate parties for what shady people might or might not do because they'll find a way around it either way. You say the way it works now is to prevent a loophole, but the even bigger and more blatant loophole is simply to organize in FC or an LS and solo queue if someone really wanted to troll the queue.

If anything the way it currently works now exactly promotes troll parties or at least allow them to be able to exist, just like T5 skipping trolls back in the day. What's there to stop people from making PFs to intentionally lock out people for 30 min? Aside from reports for abuse and blacklisting there's nothing else really, and sure 30 min might not be as bad as getting skipped to T5, but the flawed system still allows it.

[Black91CRX]

It's for the greater good lol

[SgtPepperUK]

Fellsin sounds like he's saying it's AWFUL that a single person could be in a group of 3 and that person gets to be in a group that withdraws 6 times with nobody getting a penalty.

They're also sort of ignoring that if that group of three just queued as individuals, they'd all get to withdraw from the queue 6 total times (2 for each of them) and nobody gets a penalty. So the affect upon the queue is not any different whatsoever. But those sort of facts are apparently not all that important.

I get what Fellisin is saying, it's about co-ordinated partial parties who queue and go instance fishing. First 2 times it pops party member A withdraws, 3rd time it pops party member B withdraws so A won't get a penalty and so on. So if 3 people make a party and enter DF they get 6 attempts as a group to fish for the progress status they want. A group of 8 looking to enter ST on the last phase would get 16 attempts if the penalty didn't apply to the entire party.

Whilst there is scope for abuse, to me the system is working, since 2.4 my FC and I have queued for CT and ST and gotten in faster without having it constantly repop due to people withdrawing. We've been getting in on the first or second attempt each time, more often the first. As I'm often the one that forms the party and puts us in I also make sure everyone is absolutely ready and the people I party with are aware that we'd all be penalised if they did time out for any reason when the DF popped.

[t-a-l-a-n-m-e-r-c-e-r]

As far as i know a locked out person cannot queue in a party. They will be ineligible. So Fellisin, your argument about trolling is flawed.

[Roris]

So if 3 people make a party and enter DF they get 6 attempts as a group to fish for the progress status they want.

Preformed parties can't queue in progress.

[Giantbane]

No not saying it AWFUL. I'm suggesting it why the present system exists.

Yes they could do it individually. Not ignoring that at all. But within a party someone can get someone to take a strike for them thus avoiding a thirdstrike themselves & lock out. But I guess ignoring facts like people do ask friends for favours like take a strike would happen if possible.

So a person, that has already accumulated 2 strikes, could only choose to do content in partial parties and if that person is AFK or whatever again, one of their friends could transfer their strike such that the original person doesn't get locked out? That's such a niche instance. It's very very rarely going to happen because it only works under a very specific set of circumstances. Even then, there's no extra strikes that happen since somebody else has to willingly give up one of their own strikes in order to make it work. That's a terrible justification to give everyone in the groups a strike.