Stat Clamp Choice

I'd actually be fine with it not scaling any 'easier' with less people. If you think you can solo a duo...do it. If you can 2 man an alert...do it...if you can 4 or 5 man a raid...do it. No change in difficulty or the current clamp level.

Unless you want to see it go 'harder' for a smaller group....you know...punish them for exceeding the expectations that are out there...you know, like removing feats and all rewards you advocate?

And you are worried about AQS impacting the queues....sheesh. Why would anyone run Omnis in less than full groups if this were the case?

What about disconnnects? What about PS4 flee crashes. No one would ever run PC anymore as 1/2 the group DCs on entry still. Again, any system that requires this much 'punishment' to make it work can't be that good.

This is why some of us (including me) wanted an adjustable queue so we wouldn't need to queue in with random people where we didn't need to. In theory, if the people able to (and inclined to....it wasn't everyone) faceroll old content, likely they would form a short group or solo...so random queue-ups would NOT run into them in the wild nearly as much. Most people going in on old stuff were there for feats....random queue groups aren't good for feats save speed or 'checklist' ones.

Assuming the pitch that there was a vast majority of people wanting the 'real experience' runs, and the handful of goons were messing it up, removing the goons would have gone a lot farther in helping people.

Also, please go queue up into 'sub construct' or something via Omni. Enjoy STILL getting swamped by adds and left behind by a run-ahead' tank/heal even post clamp...it still happens, they just aren't as far ahead. Of course you'll never know because if you die....good luck catching up.

And I'd be ok with the 'if the group is full' option on clamp/unclamp. But I doubt that would be an option they'd explore either.

I will do this on Thursdays and Fridays sometime as those are the best chance of getting a full group for Omnis. Later in the week though? Good luck. Maybe last week with the 2x marks, but in general? Not that I've seen.

Huh? Your 'mixed' group makes no sense. So someone who is looking for a potentially clamped run would maybe get mixed with some unclamped person be even FURTHER left behind AND get no loot. Sounds swell. Sorry, but if there were to be an option, it would end up being a 2nd instance where ONLY clamp or ONLY unclamps can be in. Clamped...full loot/marks...unclamped, only the normal chooser (old gear and yes...sometimes a mark shows up). Feats available either way, but I have no idea why anyone would EVER run clamped in an unclamped run.

Just as a reminder, I'm not and never really have been at endgame. Between going it alone the vast majority of the time and having 13 characters that I want to keep at the same CR range, it's slow going and I've almost always been behind the curve. In fact it's very likely that I will always be behind the curve due to my playstyle and how often the devs release content.

We all play the same game. There are a few things that some can participate in easier that others can't (Survivial Mode, Elite content come to mind) but overall we all play the same game. There aren't any exceptions carved out, even with graphics. Making an exception for people who want to go unclamped means a carve-out and special treatment for players who miss the closest thing to "god mode" MMO players can get. Not exactly ideal if you want to keep the players playing together.

I can see your point here lol.

However....Your group would be more beneficial to the community, if 3-4 more people filled the remaining slots...

I dont care about that, because then you have to start accounting for every tiny variable, such as someone having crap internet, or some guys dog eating their Ethernet cord.

BUt yes, full groups is the point for me.

Anything that allows you to lessen the amount of assistance needed for group content to any substantial degree, is a "non-starter" for myself.

So where am i trolling or harrassing, in my quote?

Because i asked you a principle based question, and you simply didnt bother to answer it. But simply called me a "Sea Lion" as a defense...

"Should players be Grandfathered in or be placed on a even playing field?"

"Solowing, youre "Sea-Lioning"

Youre being obtuse by not answering the question and defaulting to "its just bad"

You hadn't asked me or anyone that question, you had attempted to create a gotcha moment through a false equivalency between base placement and literally anything to do with stats clamp. Per usual you ask in bad faith attempting to base 'arguments' on false equivalency or in this case creating a false choice between grandfathering and "even playing", which is again framed in poor faith. Attempting to force people to argue against concepts like "even playing field" is simply poor conversational behavior, bad faith debate and, yes, sea-lioning.

Anyway, I made the mistake of engaging, and now I'm just going to hit ignore.

See, but for a feat run I'm not looking to 'benefit' some randoms who would fill it. If I were running a feat run, I'd like to shout in LFG as long as it takes to get what I need...then go. I'm not sitting in there for 20-30 or infinite extra minutes to find someone to drag across the line for a feat they didn't know they needed. This is NOT what I would call fun. Now, if I shouted 'need 7 for LnW feat run' and got 7 responses...sure. I'm not turning anyone away out of some 'spite' reason....but if I get 5 or 6 responses I'm good to go...why can't I just go in...why do I need to find that last person who might not be out there? Groups fall apart for feat runs all the time because you can't get 1 or 2 more people. Granted....it will be tougher with only 6 or 7 people, but do you really believe that it HAS to require 8 to do a raid? Because if you do, well every run where someone died when even at level or current content....should be stripped away as they also were not 'earned' properly....in your opinion.

They actually did. The conversation started to that point (granted it was a stretch of a comparison) because I asked if they would give up their 'non earned' SP that were gathered during the unclamped 'easy' period. Solowing took that as some call for an even playing field and brought up the home placement as that location is no longer available...but they have it already...should they lose it to make it 'even'

As one is a atheistic for base placement (location really makes no difference in your base) and one affects gameplay, it's a bad comparison...but it was honestly put out there to retort to my question on giving up SP, not as some kind of a-ha type moment.

Long story short, I contest that those who WANT the clamp so bad and have an issue with people having earned 'cheap' sp unclamped, should be willing to give up those same SP and re-earn them. It would help a LOT of those newbies who are now being funneled into bad feat runs where failure will be common. On the other hand, those of us who didn't or don't want a clamp....we are fine with keeping our dirty-dirty SP.

If you choose to clamp yourself and not also choose "clamp only" then yes. The option is mainly for the whiners who want to be clamped to have "fun". If they want to have a clamped only run, they have to check off "clamped only". The mixed Group would be ideally used for chasing feats, not loot.

Ok, but still not sure that a 'clamped' person landing in a mixed run would have any of what they would consider 'fun'. I also don't think there are that many that would choose clamp over unclamp save a one time 'for nostalgia' run. I know I wouldn't.

You'd be surprised. Like I said, for many being clamped is "fun". Idk. Why do people love the idea of being clamped to begin with? At least it would be an option. Also, it wouldn't be detrimental because "clamped" is able to complete the mission regardless.

Sorry, what? You just laid out them doing exactly what I said. "Taking that as a call for an 'even playing field' "then immediately going to false comparison when they "brought up the home placement as that location is no longer available" when we all know that "(location really makes no difference in your base)" is exactly what I'm referring to above.

You want to keep engaging, by all means, but I am very clear on what I'm seeing.

But yes, you are indeed 'punishing' in those instances, whether YOU care about it or not. And I thought this wasn't about what YOU want or I want...it's supposed to be what's good for the game, right? I think this is why originally we didn't even have the 1 min deserter penalty till they realized just how many people would bail out of 'bad' queues. Again, if this system really needs this much propping up like the Omni bonus boxes and ever harsher penalties for non-compliance....apparently people don't really want it. Not sure how you can't see that as a bad thing.

And also...I'll ask it again...do you ever ask about someone's artis, sp, cr, experience when doing a run? You ever join a group where the shout is 'need 1 body for....' run? ALL of those things make it so the runs are easier (and probably could be finished if 1, 2 or 3 people fell or just sat there or leave after joining), so by asking any of those questions you are also 'lessening the amount of assistance needed for the group'. I fail to see the difference other than an arbitrary 'we've got to have 8' number.

My point was that they did indeed ask the question in response to my question of giving up the 'ill gotten' SP. Thats it....you said they didn't ask or respond to anyone.

It was a bad comparison, but it WAS a comparison I think made in good faith, no matter how inapplicable it was.

Definitely off the topic though....but that happens all the time in these threads.

Shrug, ok. We disagree, that's fair. Anyway they made a claim to have asked a principle-based question, and they didn't, see above.

I do, however, see your point, and stand corrected.