Put back Extreme trial on raid finder again...please

[Rongway]

I don't see what the problem is here. People who can farm trials don't want to play with people who haven't cleared the trial. I think that's fair - it'd mean potentially wasting seven other people's time because one person has questionable skill or knowledge of the fight in question.

...

Long-term, I would like to see a merge of the RF functionality into DF so that everything is in one place. There are so many people wondering how to even queue for the things that used to be in the RF because they don't know it exists.

Thank you, that's what I've been trying to express here. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind about social constructs or conventions. I don't care that farmers want to farm, and I'm not shaking a "shame on you" finger at anybody. None of that is relevant to anything I've said here.


What I am interested in is interfaces.

The Raid Finder is (1) a Duty Finder (2) with a "no new people" option. This is exactly what it is. The different phase settings for "have not completed yet" are not enforced, and so the only option that offers any guarantees is the "no new people" option.

party finder and premades are completely irrelevant at this point... the raid finder exists to help indiviuals not premade parties find players that fit there skills and abilities....

And yet, whenever someone starts a "put EX back in RF" thread, there are people who want this specifically so that they can use the "no new people" button when they queue with their premade farm party, to ensure that no new people can sneak in.


Any features of the raid finder that were novel or necessary at the time of its implementation have since been introduced in the form of a data center -wide party finder. The only feature that isn't available in the party finder is an enforced "no new people" option.


So, rather than having two entry interfaces -- a duty finder and a duty finder MkII with a "no new people" option -- and a party finder for forming premade parties, we should just consolidate all duty entrances into the duty finder. Then give the premade parties (a) the ability to self-enforce a "no new people" option by giving them a bonus indicator in party finder and/or (b) the option to have Party Finder enforce a "no new people" option for them.


How people want to spend their time is not in question. But we don't need three interfaces that do the work of two. Just remove the raid finder and move its "no new people" function to one of the other interfaces.

[Dzian]

So, rather than having two entry interfaces -- a duty finder and a duty finder MkII with a "no new people" option -- and a party finder for forming premade parties, we should just consolidate all duty entrances into the duty finder. Then give the premade parties (a) the ability to self-enforce a "no new people" option by giving them a bonus indicator in party finder and/or (b) the option to have Party Finder enforce a "no new people" option for them.


How people want to spend their time is not in question. But we don't need three interfaces that do the work of two. Just remove the raid finder and move its "no new people" function to one of the other interfaces.

What about people in NON PREMADE parties....

with the raid finder people could queue solo. they could queue as a part group 2-3 people if they wanted to or a full group.....? are you going to give players not in full parties the same options in duty finder that they have in the raid finder..

could be pretty bad if you did that to the duty finder cos might find a lot of people checking that option even for 24 man raids and daily roulettes....

[Vidu]

could be pretty bad if you did that to the duty finder cos might find a lot of people checking that option even for 24 man raids and daily roulettes....

They could just not make it an option for anything except Savage and EX-primals. Its really about the function, not the interface.

[Rongway]

What about people in NON PREMADE parties....

with the raid finder people could queue solo. they could queue as a part group 2-3 people if they wanted to or a full group.....? are you going to give players not in full parties the same options in duty finder that they have in the raid finder..

If you want to be picky about the people you play with, there's already an interface for that. It's the party finder. That people want to queue as an incomplete party is unimportant, because no matter what interface we use, it comes down to waiting for the party to fill. Functionally, there is no difference between waiting for a randomly matched party to fill and waiting for a party finder party to fill. It's all cross-world at this point, and using the party finder gives you the added benefit of deciding before the duty starts if you don't like any of the people in your party so you can drop party without whining about a 30 minute penalty. So "I want to be picky about the people I play with, but I don't want to form a full party" isn't a serious argument.

Whether or not people want to use the party finder in its present form is irrelevant. If it included the cleared-only option, there would be no compelling reason to use the raid finder anymore which would lead to more interest in using the party finder.

could be pretty bad if you did that to the duty finder cos might find a lot of people checking that option even for 24 man raids and daily roulettes....

This doesn't even apply to anything I said, because everything I've said about DF functionality has been about self-enforcement in a pre-made party, not applicable to roulettes or alliance raids.

[Vidu]

Whether or not people want to use the party finder in its present form is irrelevant. If it included the cleared-only option, there would be no compelling reason to use the raid finder anymore which would lead to more interest in using the party finder.

I am not so sure about that - I would still be intrested in using the RF to be matched up with other people who have cleared the content already. And let me explain why: PF-Farm parties require a certain commitment. It is ofc expected that you're staying for several runs or that you stay even after you've got what you were looking for - and thats fair, a farm-party cant be a farm-party when they have to look for new people after every kill.
RF is only asking me to commit to one run at a time. If I have half an hour on my hand, thats not enought to join a farm-party - it is however enough to get one, maybe two kills in RF! Using the queue instead of the partyfinder is not only more convenient, its also giving you more control over how long you want to go on, without screwing other people over.

[Rongway]

PF-Farm parties require a certain commitment.

RF is only asking me to commit to one run at a time.

That's a fair point about the social constructs, but the PF includes the ability to specify, "One run only," or "One run, maybe more if time allows," at which point your social obligations are essentially the same as in a random party.

The perceived convenience of using the DF/RF over the PF, while being more than 0, is, surely overemphasized.

Duty Finder
1. Select duty.
2. Queue.
3. Wait for party to fill.
4. Confirm participation.


Raid Finder
1. Select duty.
2. Select clear/noclear preference.
3. Queue.
4. Wait for party to fill.
5. Confirm participation.


Party Finder, leader
1. Select duty.
x. Set item level (the default is no different from using DF/RF)
x. Set party composition (the default is no different from using DF/RF)
2. Comment. (≡ RF step 2)
3. Post listing. (≡ RF step 3)
4. Wait for party to fill.
5. Queue.
6. Confirm participation


Party Finder, joiner
1. Select duty.
2. Join party.
3. Wait for party to fill.
4. Confirm participation.

(I decline to consider the ready check process, as the "Confirm participation" step easily subsumes the function of a ready check; anyone who is not ready can simply decline the pop -- this is analogous to a random person in DF/RF declining a pop.)


And if we remove RF.2, RF is exactly a DF. Then if we move the clear enforcement to PF, this changes the Party Finder leader's task flow to

Party Finder, leader
1. Select duty.
2a. Select clear/noclear preference.
2b. Comment.
3. Post listing.
4. Wait for party to fill.
5. Queue.
6. Confirm participation

Or if we add a bonus indicator to the DF,

Party Finder, leader
1. Select duty.
2. Comment.
3. Post listing.
4. Wait for party to fill.
5a. Check for bonus indicator
5b. Queue.
6. Confirm participation.

(Here, I decline to consider the joiners ability to see the bonus indicator or not, as it has no effect on the ultimate outcome -- if the party leader queues anyway, the rest of the party will see the bonus message on entry and people might quit, which makes it no different than using the DF.)


The PF joiner task flow would still be the same, and it is equivalent to the DF flow. Interactions like clarification of expectations, experience levels, and prefered strategies, or the lack of such communication resulting in unpleasant surprises, is independent of which interface is used. However, if you use the PF, you have the option of clarifying these things before committing to a 30 minute penalty if things go unexpectedly.

[Vidu]

That's a fair point about the social constructs, but the PF includes the ability to specify, "One run only," or "One run, maybe more if time allows," at which point your social obligations are essentially the same as in a random party.

The perceived convenience of using the DF/RF over the PF, while being more than 0, is, surely overemphasized.

Using this logic, we could just remove DF all together and replace it with PF, couldnt we? Specially now that we're having Cross-World-PF - that still shouldnt be an option, because they do work differently.
Seriously, all we "need" (need as in "its really nice to have that") is to narrow down our queue by selecting cleared/not cleared. If that happens in DF or RF, I dont care - they're basically the same. They are, however, very different from PF.

[Rongway]

DF or RF, I dont care - they're basically the same. They are, however, very different from PF.

It sounds like where we're primarily in disagreement is whether the defining difference between Duty Finder and Party Finder comes down to (complete party vs incomplete party) or ("I don't care who I play with" vs "I care who I play with").

The ability to accommodate both complete and incomplete parties is a feature shared by both DF and PF. The ability to be selective about prior clears is not.

Insofar as functions apply to content that would be in the Raid Finder, RF is in this peculiar in-between spot where it has all the functionality of a duty finder, with a single added feature that really falls in the demesne of the party finder.

Do I want to queue with a complete party?
|
+----  No:  Do I care if people have cleared content already?
|              |
|              +----  No:  Queue Duty Finder
|              |
|              +----  Yes:  Queue Raid Finder
|
+----  Yes:  Do I have a complete party already?
               |
               +----  Yes:  Queue Duty Finder
               |
               +----  No:  Do I care if people have cleared content already?
                              |
                              +----  No:  Whether you use DF or PF doesn't matter.
                              |
                              +----  Yes:  Match with Party Finder.


----  vs  ----


Do I care if people have cleared content already?
|
+----  No:  Queue
|
+----  Yes:  Match with party finder

Everything you've said completely ignores what a few people are saying about 1 person who wants to queue a duty with the cleared only option and not join a party finder group. like the guy abouve you said about raid finder groups have no commitment you can be done after a single run if you get your drop your not expected to stay and farm... several run or commit hours of time.

And I'm ignoring those arguments for good reason. One-off, no commitment parties happen just fine in PF -- see the many Wondrous Tails parties. You can join one of those and get a win without ever saying anything to anyone, and then leave. Current trials and raids would work out just the same.