Add iLevel restrictions to Alliance Roulette

[Deveryn]

To suggest that anything should be added to MSQ roulette is to ignore its actual purpose, which was to get people to help out at a key point in the story with these scene-heavy instances. Even with duty support being enabled, they still stand on their own instead of just being put in the level 50 spot.

If someone wants to use the logic that required content should be put in the roulette, then they would have to add way more than just CT.

[Atelier-Bagur]

Considering people have asked to either change the level synch limit to keep the roulette from being zerged, or move CT to MSQ roulette because it's now a mandatory thing that skews the probability by default (as in, without even factoring in people cheesing the item level), I'm pretty sure people with the base game would be fine.

Also, people with the base game have free access to Heavensward. They can go unlock Mhach once they reach lv 60. They're not stuck to just what the MSQ gives them.



Yeah, and that's the problem with the above statement. Because if we add it to MSQ, then Mhach will be the only thing "base game players" will have access to in their Alliance Raid Roulette.

Even if they don't punch through the synch like they did with CT, it's still going to end up putting Mhach raids at a higher probability. Though, that's always to be expected; it is nowadays. People have access to this on the base game, meaning it's likely more people will have Mhach unlocked than people with, say, NieR.

However, there are alternatives to shoving CT to MSQ. Probably healthier for the content as well.

Yeah I think ultimately the whole misconception of the frequency of CT raids on roulettes due to ilv cheese is in truth the most minor of contributors . What we have currently is fine and works for what is intended (although I still stand by the case of moving CT to msq roulette) and if you really have an issue of doing CT on roulette, nothing is stopping you from leaving. You have 3 strikes per day for doing it and most people dont mind taking one regardless.

[Rein_eon_Osborne]

Yeah I think ultimately the whole misconception of the frequency of CT raids on roulettes due to ilv cheese is in truth the most minor of contributors . What we have currently is fine and works for what is intended (although I still stand by the case of moving CT to msq roulette) and if you really have an issue of doing CT on roulette, nothing is stopping you from leaving. You have 3 strikes per day for doing it and most people dont mind taking one regardless.

Not from leaving once inside the duty. You can cancel your queue once it pops 3 times, but if you're already inside a duty and decide to bail, that's insta-30m penalty for you.

[Atelier-Bagur]

Not from leaving once inside the duty. You can cancel your queue once it pops 3 times, but if you're already inside a duty and decide to bail, that's insta-30m penalty for you.

Im just speaking from experience. I often see disgruntled players leave the raid and take the penalty rather than just clear the content. People just rather waste their own time.

[KDSilver]

Maybe "alliance roulette" is too much right now.
Maybe it should be spread like dungeon ?
"alliance 50/60 - 70/80/90"

At least less big surprise and people can avoid doing the first if tired of CT.
Since CT will always fill (since mandatory, relic, lowest raid ect...)...

[PirateRyanG]

Maybe "alliance roulette" is too much right now.
Maybe it should be spread like dungeon ?
"alliance 50/60 - 70/80/90"

At least less big surprise and people can avoid doing the first if tired of CT.
Since CT will always fill (since mandatory, relic, lowest raid ect...)...

The problem is that this may stop people from progressing through the story, since they need to do CT.

Separate it out and you don't get enough people queuing for CT? That is a storyline bottleneck.

The rewards would have to be tremendous to encourage people to encourage people to queue in the CT list, or you end up with a ton of aggravated players.

[Atelier-Bagur]

The problem is that this may stop people from progressing through the story, since they need to do CT.

Separate it out and you don't get enough people queuing for CT? That is a storyline bottleneck.

The rewards would have to be tremendous to encourage people to encourage people to queue in the CT list, or you end up with a ton of aggravated players.

Which is where MSQ roulette fits in, people only do it for the huge exp gain so if you add in CT then it shouldnt be a problem at all since theres always people leveling jobs or farming tomestones.

I would like that theyd increased the exp gain from it if they ever do that but Im thinking very simply here

[PirateRyanG]

Which is where MSQ roulette fits in, people only do it for the huge exp gain so if you add in CT then it shouldnt be a problem at all since theres always people leveling jobs or farming tomestones.

I would like that theyd increased the exp gain from it if they ever do that but Im thinking very simply here

But how would you allocate people in a MSQ roulette?

Because you now have two options with varying numbers of people:

1. A set of 3 dungeons that require 4 people
2. A set of 3 dungeons that require 24 people

When people queue, do you send them into the 24 group or the 4 group?

A system would need to be designed where people currently going through the story get priority on the queue. But, this could always leave people waiting about. If you have 3 story players (for instance) queuing for each individual raid, and then 3 story players come along that want to queue for the dungeons, you have 81 spots that need to be filled (this is assuming that there are no issues with party composition) for everybody to get into a position where they can continue the story. This could result in some rather hefty queues for some players.

Getting into a 4 man dungeon now as a DPS is lengthy, but not too bad. Now, imagine if you were competing against 24-mans too.

[Midareyukki]

Okay but something should be done about the people lowering their item level to proc it though. Sprouts and people that haven't unlocked other raids I'm honestly fine with, because they're not exploiting any inherent loophole.
And the raid's simplicity really only contributes to it, because these people are hinging on CT being so simple and quick versus the rest. Plus, there's just a weird disparity between how long it takes to clear CT versus Dun Scaith or Rabanastre. Mechanics exist and bosses are more durable. Whether ilv contributes to it or not, I don't know, the point still stands: CT is way too quick and way too easy as it stands, and that incentivizes people doing it.

However, Atelier is right. It's not that often an occurrence (sometimes you really do just get the one sprout. What are you gonna do about it, tell them they're wrong for doing the MSQ? :T). But if you're looking to get the rewards from the Roulette itself, getting CT won't really put a dent on that.

Though at that point I'd be hard pressed to call it a roulette. Let me put it this way. If I had a roulette, and then painted half the red slots as black and told you to play the game as-is with no additional modifications to accomodate the clear change in , is it still Roulette? Because the issue isn't whether CT raids are simple (even if it contributes to the problem), nor whether CT is mandatory or the earliest accessible Alliance Raid; those will obviously skew the probabilities. The issue is that there are people forcifully making it happen via an exploit of the system. The exploit needs to be addressed. Whether CT is fine or not is irrelevant, the exploit needs to be done away with.

And we have options. Are they the best ones? No, but they help. I personally prefer tweaking the item level synch to discourage people from trying to cheese the roulette. It, in turn, might also tackle what people view as a boring instance. I don't think migrating it to MSQ Roulette makes sense from a certain standpoint. Because MSQ Roulette are 4 man duties with a lot of cutscenes, and then suddenly 3 24-man duties whose length hinges on the gameplay... but hey :| that's an option too I guess?

So... yeah. CT being too easy and all that? That's a problem on its own, can be addressed in other ways. Is CT going to pop very often because the probability is skewed? Sure, but it's still Alliance Roulette, deal with it, it's an instance like all the others for the most part. But people forcing it is what I personally take issue with, and it mostly happens because it's an easy content to go through.

[Midareyukki]

I don't think you can avoid making it a snoozefest. They could redo the whole place and people would just get tired of it all over again. Even if the cheese were to go away, it would still come up a lot of times.

Maybe not. And that's true, for example, I'm super tired of Azdaal's Legacy, as well as Sil'dih Subterrane. Because they get repetitive and predictable easily. But I find that fair and an obvious outcome of videogames in general. I know what I'm getting into. If you give me my favourite dish for breakfast, lunch and dinner, obviously at some point it stops feeling special. Same with any content. But at least here I know that that's what I'm signing up for.

But I already said as much.

So... yeah. CT being too easy and all that? That's a problem on its own, can be addressed in other ways. Is CT going to pop very often because the probability is skewed? Sure, but it's still Alliance Roulette, deal with it, it's an instance like all the others for the most part.

Of course, that's just me. My real gripe is just people doing what's such an obvious exploit to force the system. I approached it as "if it's so easy to the point where you AFK, and it takes less time to complete than other instances, then naturally people will prefer it". Past that, if people want to complain that a low-level instance is boring, repetitive and obvious, then that's up to them.

I speak for myself: There is a problem, and much like problems of the same kind, it should be looked into. I think the issue stems from one characteristic of the content itself. Others are free to disagee. Anything beyond that is preference.