Would it be feasible to add a Pause Queue feature?

[kujoestars]

I personally would love this, especially since I have terrible luck with stuff suddenly happening RIGHT as my queue comes up. I don't want to leave but I also don't want to leave people behind me hanging so it's be nice to just let them go ahead.

But at the same time, that kind of defeats the purpose of a queue and could end up using up resources (though I could be wrong since I barely know anything about programming). A system similar to WoW where you are just paused when in a different instance seems fine to me. But a voluntary hold feature seems redundant unless there's a limit on how long you can stay paused/how many times can you stall.

So while I'd be happy if such a system was implemented, it's not something I'd push for either. I'm already used to DPS queues thanks to WoW so I can live with simply not queuing if I think I may be afk.

[Risvertasashi]

Ignoring the obvious limitations that can be placed on any such system, such as as maximum duration before the pause is broken, making that impossible, how is 72 people in line in front of you different than 72 people in line in line in front of you (where 15 of them just came back from a pause, long or otherwise)?

At worst, it amount to more people in the queue because more people won't have been ejected from it. That higher population of users is something we usually want, because it generally reduces queue times for all but the most inflated role(s).

It would be different because people can actively cut in front of your position in the line. It's not really 72 people in front. It 57 people in front of you... then 15 people unpause, so now it's 72 in front. Then it goes down to 57 again... 15 more people unpause, and it's back to 72 again.

See the problem? This probably wouldn't happen offpeak, but on peak, especially during the ramp up hours, it very much could happen.

[Rongway]

It would be different because people can actively cut in front of your position in the line. It's not really 72 people in front. It 57 people in front of you... then 15 people unpause, so now it's 72 in front. Then it goes down to 57 again... 15 more people unpause, and it's back to 72 again.

See the problem? This probably wouldn't happen offpeak, but on peak, especially during the ramp up hours, it very much could happen.

Obviously that would be an absurd way to implement it.

A rationally-implemented pause system wouldn't have all these strange behaviors that people are panicking over.

1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12
A    B    C    D    E    F    G    H    I    J    K    L

[C pauses queue]

1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12
A    B    C    D    E    F    G    H    I    J    K    L
         !!

[A is served]
               
1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12
B    C    D    E    F    G    H    I    J    K    L    M
    !!

[B is served.  C is paused, so holds at 2.  D skips ahead]

1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12
D    C    E    F    G    H    I    J    K    L    M    N
    !!

[D is served.  C is paused, so holds at 2.  E skips ahead]

1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12
E    C    F    G    H    I    J    K    L    M    N    O
    !!
     
[G pauses queue]

1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12
E    C    F    G    H    I    J    K    L    M    N    P
    !!        !!

[E is served.  C is paused, so holds at 2.  F skips ahead]

1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12
F    C    G    H    I    J    K    L    M    N    O    P
    !!   !!
     
[F is served.  C and G are paused, so hold at 2 and 3.  H skips ahead]

1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12
H    C    G    I    J    K    L    M    N    O    P    Q
    !!   !!
     
[G unpauses queue]

1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12
H    C    G    I    J    K    L    M    N    O    P    Q
    !!
     
[H is served.  C is paused, so holds at 2.  G skips ahead]

1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12
G    C    I    J    K    L    M    N    O    P    Q    R
    !!

[O pauses queue]

1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12
G    C    I    J    K    L    M    N    O    P    Q    R
    !!                                 !!

[G is served.  C is paused, so holds at 2.  I skips ahead.
 O is paused but not on deck, so P does not skip them]
 
1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12
I    C    J    K    L    M    N    O    P    Q    R    S
    !!                            !!
    
[I is served.  C is paused, so holds at 2.  J skips ahead.
 O is paused but not on deck, so P does not skip them]
 
1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12
J    C    K    L    M    N    O    P    Q    R    S    T
    !!                       !!
    
[C unpauses queue]

1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12
J    C    K    L    M    N    O    P    Q    R    S    T
                             !!

[J is served]

1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12
C    K    L    M    N    O    P    Q    R    S    T    U
                        !!

Nobody in this example ever gets pushed back because of people unpausing queue. At worst, what happens is that people in spots 2 through 50 are paused, and when 1 gets served, the person at 51 suddenly becomes the new 1. I'd be happy to see my queue position jump up so suddenly.

[JWag12787]

I believe this was suggested before, and it comes down to, how do they fairly replace you in the queue? How do they justify someone being #1 being bumped back to #2 when you return?

[Rongway]

I believe this was suggested before, and it comes down to, how do they fairly replace you in the queue? How do they justify someone being #1 being bumped back to #2 when you return?

By not even trying. See my example immediately before your post.

That's not something that should ever happen.

Pausing and unpausing queue should never change the numbers. The only two things that should change your position in queue are

A) The #1 person is served, and everyone advances.
B) Someone in the middle of the queue leaves, and everyone after them advances.

Paused people should advance with everyone else as normal, with the restriction that the paused people start piling up beginning at position #2. That is, nobody who is paused can advance to position #1. This also has the effect that if people ##2,3,4 are paused,
1) A paused #2 cannot advance to #1 when #1 is served because paused
2) A paused #3 cannot advance to #1 when #1 is served because paused, but also cannot advance to #2 because #2 is #2
3) A paused #4 cannot advance to #1 when #1 is served because paused, but also cannot advance to #2 or #3 because #2 and #3.

[QooEr]

I think it’s a great idea. For the people saying it’s “not necessary”, QoL changes are never necessary but almost always welcome.

[JWag12787]

By not even trying. See my example immediately before your post.

That's not something that should ever happen.

Pausing and unpausing queue should never change the numbers. The only two things that should change your position in queue are

A) The #1 person is served, and everyone advances.
B) Someone in the middle of the queue leaves, and everyone after them advances.

Paused people should advance with everyone else as normal, with the restriction that the paused people start piling up beginning at position #2. That is, nobody who is paused can advance to position #1. This also has the effect that if people ##2,3,4 are paused,
1) A paused #2 cannot advance to #1 when #1 is served because paused
2) A paused #3 cannot advance to #1 when #1 is served because paused, but also cannot advance to #2 because #2 is #2
3) A paused #4 cannot advance to #1 when #1 is served because paused, but also cannot advance to #2 or #3 because #2 and #3.

So basically if I pause in #10, I pause in #10, and everyone advances around me?
Person in #11 jumps to #9 while #10 is paused?

[Tohe-Spidhire]

From a programming standpoint, it would have to be something like:

1- Use /afk to indicate that you're away.
2- You are automatically shuffled back in the queue whenever someone with your role is "behind you"

In other words, you'll percolate backwards in the queue, until you're at the very back.

...which is equivalent to you just having dropped out of the PF, and then re-queue'ing when you get back. So why bother doing any fancy coding?

[Rongway]

So basically if I pause in #10, I pause in #10, and everyone advances around me?
Person in #11 jumps to #9 while #10 is paused?

No.

Did you even look at the timeline diagram? Nobody starts skipping around you except to become #1 while you're paused. Everyone advances normally, including the paused people, except that paused people cannot advance to #1.

1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12
I    C    J    K    L    M    N    O    P    Q    R    S
    !!                            !!
    
[I is served.  C is paused, so holds at 2.  J skips ahead.
 O is paused but not on deck, so P does not skip them]
 
1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12
J    C    K    L    M    N    O    P    Q    R    S    T
    !!                       !!
    
[C unpauses queue]

1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12
J    C    K    L    M    N    O    P    Q    R    S    T
                             !!

[J is served]

1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12
C    K    L    M    N    O    P    Q    R    S    T    U
                        !!

From a programming standpoint, it would have to be something like:

2- You are automatically shuffled back in the queue whenever someone with your role is "behind you"

What? Why would you think that is necessary?

The coding concept is simple.

Pseudocode:

q.pop
i = 0
while q[i].ispaused
    ++i
remove q[i] and re-insert them at front of queue

Whenever the first person in the queue is served, skip anyone at the front of the queue who is paused. The first unpaused person becomes the front of the queue.

[Tohe-Spidhire]

What? Why would you think that is necessary?

<snip>

Whenever the first person in the queue is served, skip anyone at the front of the queue who is paused. The first unpaused person becomes the front of the queue.

No, it isn't. Queue position refers to the party that you are in, not individual player.

So if you're DPS with a party in queue position 1, but go afk, that means you get shuffled to other parties further back in the queue because you're giving up your spot to newly arrived DPS.

Did you think you were going to hold back an entire party of players due to your being afk? Nope, you're ejected from the party when someone better comes along, and in short order you are in the furthest-back party, making it equivalent to having dropped from the queue. Therefore, not worth coding.