One player per job? REALLY SQUARE?!

[YunBranwen]

Say one person's static has shared jobs and for some reason one of the people in said static has to go, but the rest continues. They choose to pug, but the duty finder won't let that happen unless someone changes their job, which screws over the static groups. That is my point. This new requirement is in the patch notes.

What people want to do in their party finders, it sucks, but it's their choice, as was said. That was never the debate here. IT's Square pushing a rule that doesn't need to be one. If people choose this, that's the player, if statics have to pug a group, their stategy for the boss they worked hard on is thrown out the window.

THAT is my point.

If it starts with the savages, what's next?

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

But no one uses duty finder to grab a pug, they use party finder....

[Exosapien]

Say one person's static has shared jobs and for some reason one of the people in said static has to go, but the rest continues. They choose to pug, but the duty finder won't let that happen unless someone changes their job, which screws over the static groups. That is my point. This new requirement is in the patch notes.

What people want to do in their party finders, it sucks, but it's their choice, as was said. That was never the debate here. IT's Square pushing a rule that doesn't need to be one. If people choose this, that's the player, if statics have to pug a group, their stategy for the boss they worked hard on is thrown out the window.

THAT is my point.

If it starts with the savages, what's next?

Is this what you're talking about?

[YunBranwen]

Yeah. That's it.

[Exosapien]

... lmao

I'll let someone else handle this.

[Avidria]

Say one person's static has shared jobs and for some reason one of the people in said static has to go, but the rest continues. They choose to pug, but the duty finder won't let that happen unless someone changes their job, which screws over the static groups. That is my point. This new requirement is in the patch notes.

What people want to do in their party finders, it sucks, but it's their choice, as was said. That was never the debate here. IT's Square pushing a rule that doesn't need to be one. If people choose this, that's the player, if statics have to pug a group, their stategy for the boss they worked hard on is thrown out the window.

THAT is my point.

If it starts with the savages, what's next?

Oh you mean the part where you can't queue in duty finder with more than one of the same job? Because the patch notes also explicitly say "* Item level restrictions and role requirements do not apply when registering as a full party."

I... I mean I'm genuinely not sure how many people even queue for duty finder in anything other than a full party, at least in NA. I thought people mostly filled groups in PF and queued as a full group anyway. So what's the problem?

Edit - I did a quick skim of the patch 5.05 notes and it looks like the same rule was true then too. So I'm pretty sure this isn't even new unless I'm missing something??

[WhiteArchmage]

*item level restrictions and role requirements do not apply when registering as a full party.

In your incredibly specific scenario, the static will make a PF, put the slot to be the same job as the person who's missing and... that's it, One Per Job is an OPTION. 99.9% of the time a static lacking one member won't just up and queue in raid finder.

[Cadmar]

Oh boy. I don’t even know what to say.

This is nothing new. It’s been like that forever. It only states it in the notes because it’s a new raid.

Oh, and no one uses Raid Finder. So there’s that too…

[Saraide]

Oh it's about using raid finder. Lmao yea just host a pf for the spot you are missing, get a person in and then queue up after you're full.

[Exosapien]

*item level restrictions and role requirements do not apply when registering as a full party.

In your incredibly specific scenario, the static will make a PF, put the slot to be the same job as the person who's missing and... that's it, One Per Job is an OPTION. 99.9% of the time a static lacking one member won't just up and queue in raid finder.

Their specific make-believe scenario doesn't work in the first place, because if they're using the queue to get the last person, there's only a slight chance that the role that fills is the same as two others in their made-up group with it's "super special strat" - if that was ever possible in the first place, which is hasn't been, like ever because this "rule" isn't new.


And they're complaining about not having time to get a group because they have real life obligations? TF does that even have to do with any of this? lmao

None of this makes any sense.