I love DCUO so can you remove the stat clamp already?

It is not, the worst part is that you know it is not but you want to believe it is.

The dificulty to find people to get in is exactly the same in worst case scenario.

Not at all. Less chance to mess up with the feat? You don't remember the put in order the lantern mist cannister or the find the right artifacts on a New gods raid, or that alert in which you have to 'jail' the minotaur; no, without clamp the chances to mess up the feat are the same, but with clamp you have the time to understand what is happening, what you have to do, etc. Moreover, you don't have to guess how it would be, we already now from the last years experience.

To put some color to your words is not going to make them flawless.
First, do away or make it optional? What are you asking for? In any case it doesn't work as a lot of people has pointed before me (and better).

Second, the queue timers, i thought about it long ago and it brings some new problems, how much time to get in? One hour? two? Half? 2 minutes? Now let's say you are in and have forgotten that raid need 3 characters (as Khandaq) now you are there trapped and maybe that third useful body was left behind due to the timer and now it's doing other instance. I know, the server could check what raid it is and what is the minimum quantity of characters required and start the timer when the minimum of characters are gathered, now let's say someone left that queue (due to log out or to get in other raid, etc), that timer should reset? Moreover, if the server has to check one more thing it means it cannot be doing other things... All of this thinking you are asking for a timer with the clamp, without the clamp we'll be going back to the rest of issues that have been talk in this thread.

Also, with the queue timers, there is other problem: your 5 character group queue, someone else also queue, your group accept to get in, the other character don't accept, what should do the game? Let your group to get in? To not let you? If you are not allowed you get mad and have to wait again, if the game let your group and not the other character then you are making its waiting longer (maybe endless, if it happens the same with other groups) from waiting to two people now it'll be waiting for seven more. Maybe that other character is queuing in your raid and other, after refusing getting in, he goes to the other raid, now your timer is reseted (i guess is not going to ask you every 5 seconds) and have to wait again, so....it doesn't seem to have solved the problem...

As this particular issue is important to me, although I'd prefer it not to be a timer, but a check to either enter with what you have (at your own risk) or to use the matchmaking we have today, I'll answer with my opinion on that subject.

The timer should be set to something that would make sense, say 5 min...or make it so we can set it ourselves, like a box for X minutes before you enter 'as is'. 2 hours seems senseless, but I guess if you want to put in 120 min....go for it. I'd figure most would want 5-10 min MAX. If some other group has a few bodies and they queue at the same time...great. They fill your group. If they deny the queue, when the timer hits 5 min (or 10...or whatever) you go in without them....they can find another group...they chose NOT to accept it...their loss. This is something people will do even in endgame when you can't get that last role, or maybe are short a few dps except we don't have a 'timer' ....we wait and shout a few more times in LFG before queuing up and hoping for a filler...Sometimes you don't get it, or get something substandard, or sometimes that additional person walks out and you can either re-open or go with 7.

Again, I'm not a fan of the timer. I'd rather enter the run with what I have, and if I decide I can make do without a critical role...welp, I'm going to take my chances with that situation. For some content it wouldn't matter much, like alerts. For Raids it might matter a bit more, but let's face it, most older raids can be done without a troll, sometimes a tank, and even heal in certain cases and can 100% be done with less DPS than a full group. If you queue DM with 4 people and can't run the cogs when you get to last boss...you could always start shouting for help and invite as needed I guess...or disband, again...buyer (or queuer) beware. I could see some sort of note in the raid description for 'minimum players' that would tie to specific cogs. Kahndaq being 3 people, DM being 6, 2 for FOS2, etc...

There is no system that can be devised that would account for people not knowing what they are doing, or leaving the group short. You could queue into a raid today with all 'roles' and still not have anyone to tank/heal or troll. You could queue into a raid with 8 people and have 3 people drop and those spots not fill. The only thing different about some sort of 'go in now' system is you don't HAVE to get to those 8 people to now find out you are actually 'short staffed'. You don't HAVE to wait for a queue to pop repeatedly, never to get in, or get in and still be short handed.

And for feat hunting, lets face it, sometimes adding that 1 last person (either random or by begging in LFG) is what actually loses you the feat....not wins it. Speed runs and checklists/counts aside, most feats in the game require some sort of control on burn...focused on 1 thing, or avoiding something for some time. 1 guy can upset that....a lot.

BTW...IF a timer was used, the minimum should be 0 min...meaning you go in AS IS. If you have 7 people all wanting to work on a no/slow burn feat, but can't find an 8th...no one would want a random to jump in.

Saying things don't make it true.

Yeah... Citing specific feats that probably need specific people with specific knowledge doesn't really negate the "Less chance" in reference to other feats.

Doesn't hurt.

Do you not understand English??

Once again... just saying something doesn't make it true.

1) The length of the timer is irrelevant to having one. It could set for any length of time.

2) Going into raids with less players than the raid requires is the problem of the group.
Also... The group could opt in with the hope of getting the needed players before they reach the mechanic in question.

That is waaaayyyy too much nonesense to give up on the concept.

- "What if it's a Tuesday and there's a full moon?"
I'm gonna quote you from earlier on this very page: Don't overthink too much

Oops.

Previous page.

I love how you take each and every sentence and respond with a snappy one-liner like you are somehow cutting him down piece by piece.

Do you ever get bored of desperately trying to please your own ego? You aren't winning anything.

Our lord and savior "the clamp" is here to bring us all to a better future. One where pettiness such as this will be a thing of the past. Brighter days are ahead of us.

I doubt it.

Easily

A sheep... a female sheep

and ong.

Handed down....

Acoordrdingly

I tell ya... No respect.

Not "like"...

The doctor says I could go blind.

That sounds like desperate affirmation,

Still a funny bit.

No, it's a hilarious bit. Dont sell yourself short. And that it drives a very silly person, with a weird satanic (spelled; clamp) worship obsession, nuts makes it even funnier.

"Make sense" it's too subjective, that is why my question on time comes in. Two hours seems too much but 5 min seems too few, i did the long live legion dailies in like 10~15 min. It should be checked how much time is waiting the people, right now the max waiting time i had on my weekly run (you now, my last thread) is 15 min, l wouldn't say is too much waiting (probably because i'm doing dailies or whatever makes me busy) but for others would be an eternity, that is why i asked how much time, it's hard to draw a line in this (almost for me).

My concern is to avoid someone never has the chance to get in, yes you are right, its their choice (as the ones who comes in the alert see that we are in end boss and leave, instead of going to settins and activate the "not queue in instances that have started" or whatever is called) but also we need to think in more scenarios, five different guys that have fallen lots of time a certain raid and don't want to risk to fail with less than 8 people, maybe it could work maybe not... no one wants to start to disband...

The timer i'm thinking more to give a chance to others in need to join, without timer groups will get in faster of course but lonely players will be 'punished'. I agree that you don't always need a full group (today for example i killed last boss on Black Adam elite alert with just three and no healer) but as i said it's more to avoid 'punish' a player regardless its role.

I do know believe me, i'm still missing my "not close portals" feat, the less people the less chance to mess up or the less chance to know what must be done... (computers on Brainiac) who knows, each feat has its issues adding someone or removing could be the key to success.

Here you have something i didn't thought at all and it's a good point, the bigger you group is the shorter should be the timer, because your chances are higher of success, but i disagree with 0 seconds, there should be a window (even if it's small) so people can join, i know it could be a mess for the feat but,,,

So, it depends on the feats, thats why i listed a couple of them so you know because your words weren't accurate at all.

Vale, muy bien, de acuerdo, correcto.

Cualquiera no vale, ya he dado mis razones al respecto.

Se trata de un problema del grupo ciertamente pero ya sea fruto del olvido o del desconocimiento, se debería tener en cuenta para no acabar dedicando recursos del servidor a una causa fallida desde el segundo cero.

No se trata de ningún sinsentido, se trata de intentar pensar en las diferentes situaciones para que en la medida de lo posible no cree un gran impacto negativo en según que circunstancias.

Here's my quote:
No clamp, groups are more likely to open up and let others in a blind queue because they might have less chance of actually effing up the feat.

Being "more likely to open up" without the clamp because outsiders "might" have "less of a chance" IS accurate.... (this is speaking from years of experience)
Of course it doesn't apply to some feats. (Or it would be crazier to try with those feats)
Yes.. There are exceptions to everything. Citing them doesn't negate the general rule.

Once again, that's just you saying ++++ and calling it ice cream just because you want a sundae.

You're still just creating nonsense regardless of what language you write it in.

I wasn't sweating the details when I wrote the suggestion... but, okay:

Set the timer for 10 minutes with it checking back every five minutes after that...
Set the group responsible for getting the instance done... If they don't have enough people to do the mechanics to finish.. SO BE IT.
They're out of luck. (Or they just wait til someone one queues in)

Happy?

See, that's the great thing about options. IF a timer were set, I'd say the group lead can set the number, entered when setting up the queue. Lets say I've got a group of 5 together for something like Flashpoint raids, as long as I think I've got what I need, I can set it to 2 or 3 min....Maybe I'm missing a role, I might set it to 10 and after 10....if we get in...we give it a shot short handed. You however might never want to go in with missing roles, so hey...set it to 3 hours(or whatever a 'max' number would be....I doubt the group would stay together that long, so it's basically just NOT setting a queue at all....which is what would happen if you couldn't get the people today. You'd just bail. Again, I'd personally prefer to have to assemble what I think i need and then just enter 'as is' vs a timer, but I can see the attraction of a timer too. And as long as 0 min was an option, it serves both purposes.

Options are always better...period. It leaves it to the individual or group to decide what they are comfortable with. Right now we have very little options. Fill a group in LFG, or let matchmaking find those players...if that's possible. Why would anyone be opposed to a 3rd option where you can avoid that queue....or the randoms that come with it?

And in case you haven't read 220+ pages, 'options' is the general overall theme of this thread....well one side at least.

PS...since you reference the other thread...You weren't able to get into BBS you said. Now I don't know how many you had lined up to do it, but if it was, say 6, and you had the roles covered, wouldn't it be nice to go in with the 6 you had (theoretical....not sure if you had any)?

Menanggapi orang yang menggunakan penerjemah bahasa adalah konyol. Tetapi jika itu adalah hal yang Anda inginkan, mari kita lakukan.




Lihatlah betapa kerennya saya menulis dalam bahasa lain.




Serius, mengapa begitu menentang orang yang memiliki opsi dalam permainan?




Oh baiklah, untuk masing-masing mereka sendiri.

Normalmente evito la barrera del lenguaje pero no sólo en una ocasión sino en dos has mencionado una falta de comprensión por mi parte del inglés, siendo así he preferido empezar a escribirte en cristiano y ya si quieres lo traduces y sino pues no tanto da, para mi es más cómodo sin duda ya que me permite usar arcaísmos, regionalismos o simplemente florituras que de otra manera no puedo hacer.
Lo único que lamento es que el resto de lectores quizás no se enteren de mis palabras pero tienen mi parecer en otras respuestas así que tampoco es un gran inconveniente para ellos realmente.

Mejor, con vaguedades poco se puede hacer pero con detalles al menos se puede intentar ver que funcionaría y que no.

I still have issues with a 0 min queue time (insert classic agree to disagree here) because i still want to give somekind of oportunity to others (i don't like the idea of leaving someone behind).
About the player setting the timer instead of being something setted by the game is good too*, but it still needs to have some max limit (to avoid endless waits or people messing up for fun?) and min limit ( to avoid too much loading instances at the same time by lonely players). Max time is not an issue i believe (one hour is enough waiting from my view but i guess no one would complain if its setted to 24 hours or whatever it is) about minimum i'm not sure, i would say the same time you need to end the dailies of an open world would be my suggestion maybe a little bit less.

*Good because avoids the server have to work more although it could be a problem due to cheaters manipulating the clock.

You are right, i got in the following day (or two days later i don't remember it) that's why i mess up. I had no one, i'm doing it the hard way (to queue alone and ask inside) to see how hard is to get in and get the feats, obviously if at some point someone send me a tell to invite i'll do it but the main idea (at the moment) is to check how hard it is (i know it's longer but it's the only way to check how hard it is).

I've already explained why i decided to change to other language. I don't know what are you telling me there, if it's good then ok, if it's bad then keep it for yourself.

No problemo.

Verdadero

Me, too.
I think it should be because of desperation,... not sheer desire: A last resort.
A way to play an instance that you wouldn't be allowed to play if no one else ever queued for.

BUUUUUT: I suppose any group could always kick somebody that they didn't really want in the group at any given time... So it wouldn't really matter if they opted to have no one else from the very start.

But a minimum defeats the purpose if you were shorting the queue to work on a feat you were well equipped for. If you shouted for a bit in LFG and no one answered, why would you want a random to join, why open it at all if you can avoid it? And if your answer is 'some people don't use LFG', well I'm not sure you want those people in your feat run either. For straight runs, in general, more is always better so the 0 min queue would likely only be used where a feat is the primary target....not just 'getting in'. A side benefit would be for runs where you want to invite opposite faction players. You go in short then invite 1 or 2 people from the other side.

And again, IF a timer, I suppose they could impose a minimum too...max too, although I'd guess it would be at most 999 as it saves a digit and 999 min is about 16.5 hours...so I'd guess that would be enough. Honestly I think 99 would be enough for most groups. IF a timer, I'd like to see an option to set it vs a stock min/max of 5/30 or 10/60 or 1/10. One set of numbers will likely not make anyone happy as it will be too short or too long, depending on who you ask.

And this IS all way off topic btw....aren't we suppose to be talking about the clamp or something? Timer or limited queue is a separate discussion, and although less attractive in conjunction with a clamped run, it's still something that we could benefit from overall.

Yeah...

But I really do believe the best road for the game is paved with a queue in party-size option and a clamp option.

And, yes, having no clamp highlights the benefit of the party-size option.

I'd agree, but one should not be tied exclusively to the other....I'd take the queue option without a clamp option personally.

Wit outta doubt!!

People want to play silly games they can win silly prizes. Maybe I should break out the Farsi for them.

Lol this is rich. They literally sell packs of xp and grinding mats so you don't have to play the game.