Average wait time: Less than 5m.

[Claustrum]

An explanation of how something works isn't a defense for, nor an argument against it. It's just facts as is.

During the server problems at the launch of Endwalker, let's pretend I made a post complaining about how hard it is to log in, and how it should not be that hard to log in. If someone replied with "Well, SE doesn't have the hardware to make it easier to log in.", then they are explaining why it is hard to log in. They are also implicitly telling me that it doesn't need fixing because that's just the way things are.

If I'm saying "system X is broken", and you're saying "system X works like this", then you're working in defense of system X. If, however, you say "yeah, system X is broken. This is how it works right now, and I wish it'd change." then you're advocating for change of system X.

I hate how broken our brains are politically. We keep getting people who tell us that they're "just stating facts" when they have an obvious reason behind why they say what they say.

[Canadane]

During the server problems at the launch of Endwalker, let's pretend I made a post complaining about how hard it is to log in, and how it should not be that hard to log in. If someone replied with "Well, SE doesn't have the hardware to make it easier to log in.", then they are explaining why it is hard to log in. They are also implicitly telling me that it doesn't need fixing because that's just the way things are.

If I'm saying "system X is broken", and you're saying "system X works like this", then you're working in defense of system X. If, however, you say "yeah, system X is broken. This is how it works right now, and I wish it'd change." then you're advocating for change of system X.

I hate how broken our brains are politically. We keep getting people who tell us that they're "just stating facts" when they have an obvious reason behind why they say what they say.

No I think you're simply taking in more than is presented.
Even in your hypothetical situation, SE announced they were looking to purchase more equipment and at the time they literally couldn't even at above market rates. Someone saying that it's a hardware issue isn't the same as saying it's okay for it to be like this.
People do not have to state "I agree with your complaints" somewhere in their response, and thinking that because they didn't they must imply the opposite is some mental gymnastics at work.
You should take some time to reflect on how you receive feedback.

[Claustrum]

No I think you're simply taking in more than is presented.
Even in your hypothetical situation, SE announced they were looking to purchase more equipment and at the time they literally couldn't even at above market rates. Someone saying that it's a hardware issue isn't the same as saying it's okay for it to be like this.
People do not have to state "I agree with your complaints" somewhere in their response, and thinking that because they didn't they must imply the opposite is some mental gymnastics at work.
You should take some time to reflect on how you receive feedback.

k, I will.

But just out of curiosity, how do you feel about this topic? Do you feel the duty finder's estimated wait time should be reworked to more accurately reflect how long a person could expect to wait to find a group? Or maybe you feel like I'm making a mountain out of a molehill?

[Canadane]

k, I will.

But just out of curiosity, how do you feel about this topic? Do you feel the duty finder's estimated wait time should be reworked to more accurately reflect how long a person could expect to wait to find a group? Or maybe you feel like I'm making a mountain out of a molehill?

I feel that if less than the needed people are in queue, it should mention this. "Waiting for more players" or something to that effect.
Seeing yourself rise the average wait time is not useful information, even if you can garner the reason using deductive logic.

[Claustrum]

I feel that if less than the needed people are in queue, it should mention this. "Waiting for more players" or something to that effect.
Seeing yourself rise the average wait time is not useful information, even if you can garner the reason using deductive logic.

Sorry, I need to make sure I don't misrepresent you here. Are you saying that you think the duty finder wait queue is mostly fine as it is, but it would be helpful if it told you when it's waiting for more players?

[Canadane]

Sorry, I need to make sure I don't misrepresent you here. Are you saying that you think the duty finder wait queue is mostly fine as it is, but it would be helpful if it told you when it's waiting for more players?

You would be correct.
What I mentioned would alleviate your initial issues as well. Perhaps not alleviate the lack of players in a specific duty, but that's somewhat outside SE's control.

[Claustrum]

You would be correct.
What I mentioned would alleviate your initial issues as well. Perhaps not alleviate the lack of players in a specific duty, but that's somewhat outside SE's control.

Okay... do you think I don't understand that the game doesn't have enough players registering for a duty when I get stuck in DF hell? No, I'm in the queue because it's waiting for enough players to register. If it wasn't waiting for players, it would just pop up and I could enter the match, no waiting required. I don't need the game to tell me "yo dude, not enough people are signing up for this, so we gotta wait a bit." to understand why I can't get into a match.

The thing I'm complaining about is that the duty finder gives an estimated wait time, and the estimated wait time is completely inaccurate. My problem is that the game ALWAYS says the average wait time is less than 5m, yet I haven't been able to do a ranked match in the past 2 weeks despite being registered for at least an hour every night.

[Silhart]

During the server problems at the launch of Endwalker, let's pretend I made a post complaining about how hard it is to log in, and how it should not be that hard to log in. If someone replied with "Well, SE doesn't have the hardware to make it easier to log in.", then they are explaining why it is hard to log in. They are also implicitly telling me that it doesn't need fixing because that's just the way things are.

If I'm saying "system X is broken", and you're saying "system X works like this", then you're working in defense of system X. If, however, you say "yeah, system X is broken. This is how it works right now, and I wish it'd change." then you're advocating for change of system X.

I hate how broken our brains are politically. We keep getting people who tell us that they're "just stating facts" when they have an obvious reason behind why they say what they say.

I got reminded of this tweet. I don't think anyone's brains are broken, but it sounds like you have a bad case of terminally online syndrome lol. Obviously people shouldn't take everything at face value, but it's also not healthy to read into everything people say as if they have a hidden agenda and twist their words into something they never meant

[UkcsAlias]

I got reminded of this tweet. I don't think anyone's brains are broken, but it sounds like you have a bad case of terminally online syndrome lol.

Language barriers can do a lot. Even though people can speak english well, in their brain its often still converted to their native language, where sentence structures can imply things that originaly werent written. Even for native english speakers these things are likely to happen, but after translation it usualy gets worse.

Especialy neutral comments to explain things without taking any stance are often misinterpreted.

In that twitter example the "I like pancakes" would normaly be "I like pancakes more" as that implies pancakes are better, which then often gets misunderstood because its used as an argument to make the waffles (which the original subject was about) sound a bit worse. But even though its implied as a bit worse than pancakes, nothing says you dislike it (but then again, that twitter post has such amount of grammar errors, its not surprising this detail was missing there, and in the end, it did send the correct message).

Welcome to the internet :P

[Claustrum]

I got reminded of this tweet. I don't think anyone's brains are broken, but it sounds like you have a bad case of terminally online syndrome lol. Obviously people shouldn't take everything at face value, but it's also not healthy to read into everything people say as if they have a hidden agenda and twist their words into something they never meant

"I like pancakes."

"Pancakes need eggs to be made, and eggs require the enslavement of chickens to be made. They also require wheat, and wheat requires land to be grown. A lot of the land that wheat is grown on was stolen from native inhabitants. Also, this link <link> shows how pancakes are bad for your health and the environment."

"Cool. It is clear from the context of the stuff you said that you neither support or oppose me liking pancakes. I'm glad we could have this productive discussion. Just out of curiosity though, why did you say all that stuff? Were you maybe trying to tell people it's not okay to like pancakes?"

"Wtf, dude. I'm just stating facts. Why you gotta read into it?"