Average wait time: Less than 5m.

[UkcsAlias]

It isn't serving its purpose in that case. It is temporarily broken due to lack of data.

Thats not temporarily though, its conditionaly broken (as the issue is always there). In most cases it works well because the longest wait time is generaly a good indication (as the longest waiting person is often prioritized, its unlikely to exceed that value by a lot), but if there isnt anyone, it shouldnt use that measurement anymore since its plain incorrect. In such case it should either resolve to the last time the duty was started, or indicate it simply cannot estimate (forming party is normaly my indication for that, as otherwise you would get a waiting position).

I think it should in these cases resolve to the previous run and check how long the queue was there. For day/night it might still vary a lot. But if it then already states 2h, if it ends up being 3h it at least makes sense (and the inverse then also works). Even if the queue isnt full, if it states it takes generaly 2h to fill, either i will be willing to wait (not), or i will wait until its closer the estimated time it normaly would start, and then queue in the hopes for more people. But yeah, this very issue is the reason why im not going to queue for any alliance raid outside of peak hours (which then can still easily take 30-60minutes of queue, while it states 5min average...).

If they realy want to take it further, they could make it so you can double queue until it reaches a remaining estimated wait time of for example 30mins (normal dungeons generaly wont take this long). It then will at least be able to indicate a better number of people that are waiting, and since there is a 30min treshold, if the duty would start, it doesnt matter as much that its 15min delayed because someone was already in a duty. 15mins in an already 2h long wait is only a small amount. And this would at least promote more people to queue, which is helpful in general.

Queues are one of the biggest problems in MMO's, so any frustration removed here would be a major QoL improvement.

[Claustrum]

Which part of what I've written is defending it, rather than simply explaining how it currently works (or fails to work)?

How is that not a defense? That's an appeal to nature, which is a defense. Did you not mean to defend it? I will give you a chance to revoke your defense if you want.

[Edelgarde]

Professor Yinny, are you seriously taking the piss at the person who's giving you a proper answer. Did I fart on your threads so hard that you've got this built in anger and you feel the need to have a go at someone who simply wanted to inform you that the 'estimated wait time' is broken as all hell? You got your answer. No one's defending the crappy system.

[Claustrum]

Professor Yinny, are you seriously taking the piss at the person who's giving you a proper answer. Did I fart on your threads so hard that you've got this built in anger and you feel the need to have a go at someone who simply wanted to inform you that the 'estimated wait time' is broken as all hell? You got your answer. No one's defending the crappy system.

....wut?

So we all agree the system should change?

edit: Or are you also defending the "crappy system"?

[Edelgarde]

....wut?

So we all agree the system should change?

edit: Or are you also defending the "crappy system"?

I stated that no one is defending the crappy system.

Then you proceed to ask me if I'm defending the crappy system.

You okay there?

[Iscah]

Thats not temporarily though, its conditionaly broken (as the issue is always there).

Yeah, conditionally is a better word. I knew "temporarily" wasn't ideal but it was the closest thing I could think of. (Logic train: It is temporarily giving the wrong answer but will start being correct again when the queue is busier.)

It should at very least display something like "insufficient data" instead of the same "less than five minutes" message you get when there really are people getting into the duty that quickly.

[Claustrum]

I stated that no one is defending the crappy system.

Then you proceed to ask me if I'm defending the crappy system.

You okay there?

I asked if we all agree the system should change. If you think it's okay as is, that's defending it.

So is it crappy, or is it alright?

Edit: state that the matchmaking system is crappy and should be changed a bit, or state that the matchmaking system is fine as it is (and then accept that you're defending it)

[Canadane]

How is that not a defense? That's an appeal to nature, which is a defense. Did you not mean to defend it? I will give you a chance to revoke your defense if you want.

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

[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.

[Claustrum]

Last night, I spent at least 5 hours in que for ranked pvp, and I never got into a match. When the wait timer got over 30 minutes, I would exit the que, then re-enter. Every time I entered the que, the game told me that the average wait time for ranked pvp is less than 5 minutes.

Just stating facts.