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

[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.

[Astyrah]

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.

this act (not saying you) is completely rude to do in JP datacentre. if say, you join a "4 runs alex <insert 9 to 12> savage farm PT" and leave without a word since you only needed 1 page, it would make the people upset and view you as a deserter and a very rude person and worse they could black list you in their "reddit" or message boards such as 2ch and you may end up not being able to join pts next time because you get kicked on sight - thankfully this happens very very rarely as people are very courteous and considerate of others

[Rongway]

[joining a party and leaving after one run without saying anything] is completely rude to do in JP datacentre. if say, you join a "4 runs alex <insert 9 to 12> savage farm PT" and leave without a word since you only needed 1 page, it would make the people upset and view you as a deserter and a very rude person and worse they could black list you in their "reddit" or message boards such as 2ch and you may end up not being able to join pts next time because you get kicked on sight - thankfully this happens very very rarely as people are very courteous and considerate of others

For sure, it would be rude if the party specification was for multiple runs. My reply was in response to people saying that some players don't want to use the PF because they don't want to be obligated to do multiple runs -- my point is that they can use PF without that obligation. Parties in party finder can specify that they only want to do a single run, and there are people who currently do use it that way. It's not rude to leave after one run if the party comment states that the party is only going to do one run.