Quote Originally Posted by PyurBlue View Post
They want us filling queues for people, right. That's why I'm suggesting an opt out option. I don't fill queues for anyone waiting for alliance raids because I'd rather avoid the entire rouluette than get the really boring duties in it. If I could queue without being eligible for the raids I don't like, I would. It's a gain for everyone. Choice doesn't defeat the purpose of the roulette and if you think about it, we already have a choice in that we have multiple roulettes for filling different content. Every roulette except the Mentor roulette excludes duties. I'm just suggesting a slightly finer level of control. I feel like it's especially likely to work in the alliance roulette because we have a split of opinion on which raids are preferred. ARR is probably going to remain more popular overall no matter what is done, but if people who avoid the roulette entirely start queuing, that's a plus. More choice also means the people unwilling to deal with the 70 raids wouldn't be joining them and immediately quitting.

As for the ilvl requirement, I guess there are a few ways to implement it. As it is now it allows people to influence the raid that they get. If we change it so that the requirement is dynamic, people can still quit, some might just avoid unlocking certain raids. Those players like myself have no more incentive than now to queue, and new players (especially with Road to 70) might be cutoff from a roulette just because they don't meet the requirements for 1 duty within it.
The problem is if you provide people an opt out method, a significant number will veto the least efficient options. In essence, you're providing a non-exploitative way for people to guarantee they only get LotA/ST which will make the queues even longer for everything else. If such a feature existed for say, Leveling Roulette, a lot of people will pick the baby dungeons to ensure they never take them. This could make queuing into even Copperbell a nightmare for newer players, which is not a good first impression. What you're suggesting wouldn't solve anything but potentially make it worse.