I love DCUO so can you add a party-size option already?

So... Eternal damnation.... Got it.

Btw...

It is funny how the "opposing" view, who seem stunned that the other thread is still going on/is as long as it is/think that it is thrashed to hell.... Are the very ones who are bringing that clamp discussion to this thread.

They miss you over there

I think you are in the wrong thread...

There is a clamp related thread elsewhere. Leave your backwater voodoo worship there weirdo.

Also, your 'stance' makes no sense. You can enter with 5, 6 or 7....but will be forced to take on extra people who might queue up randomly? That defeats the purpose of most feat runs where you want to limit knuckleheads messing things up.

But I'd guess you'd just then kick them? Once you do kick them, are you forced to re-open to new randoms? But nah...I suppose that is fine then to run with the 7 remaining members. I've never read your Deity's 2 page...probably crayon written...bible... so I don't know your 'rules'.

It makes perfect sense. You just need to open your mind and accept the one true god.

The reasoning for allowing all to enter is simple. We want to prevent social pariahs and super cliquey folk that are too cool for school from dividing the community even further.

Someone like yourself... that lives in a murky garage and steals wifi from his neighbour... would probably settle with the 4 people he's comfortable around instead of risking his feelings getting hurt by the 2 potential additions.

The purpose of something like this should be about getting faster queues and being able to enter unpopular content more easily. It defeats the purpose if you're... "gatekeeping" the instances from the new players now, wouldn't it?

In this potential "mode"... kicking should be banned as well. A straight up cluster bomb held together by nothing by faith and love.

This is the worst attempt at reasoning....

1) You're not "not allowing" all people to enter... at least, no more than not answering/denying somebody's LFG response.

2) Getting into unpopular content is the purpose.... You're not "gatekeeping" new players who aren't queuing for the instance, anyways... That's why the instance is called "unpopular" in the first place.

Save that garbage for the playground.

Well... if there is nobody queuing then you wouldn't have to worry about them and you can go 3 man Shattered Gotham to your hearts content. Buuuut... that one new dps player that hasn't learned to tie his own shoes yet should be permitted to tag along without any individuals blessing. He's probably been waiting awhile.

~sip tea~ Incivility. Reinheld is in now way, shape or form a social pariah nor is he the drudge of society you have painted to him to be. I have found him to an upstanding player in this game, very generous with what he has and has a willingness to share as well as teach.

The point of the primary idea postulated here to start a queue with less than the required number of players. I don’t know how what would work but I understand the desire should there be a group of 6 or 7 players who wish to start an 8 player raid with their current numbers because they have waited an unreasonable amount of time for the queue to pop.

You have expressed concern for dividing the community even further. What are the reasons for the division(s)? Once identified, perhaps a discussion on solutions would be in order. I know of a few reasons for division, but if we can’t even have a civil discussion here about Optional Group Size, how can we possibly have a civil discussion on unifying the player base?

Attacks like the above do very little to foster good will.

TBH we are both in our corners and own believes and how it would pan out in reality.

But if i asked any random player around, how many realistically would know what a walk-in is? Compared to those who didnt?

Ummmmmm.... Sure?

I actually split my time between 2 houses....both have WiFi, however I will generally only game hardwired anyway, thanks. And when did 'feelings' enter the conversation? The discussion was being able to enter content that is either A) not queuing in quick enough (meaning these non existent '2 potential additions' aren't there or aren't queuing) or B) you need to limit the random factor in a feat run. As someone who kicks people out of feat groups, I'd think you are perfectly fine with this.

It isn't gatekeeping if you are building a group from LFG but just can't find a final 1 or 2 to get in. Who said they wanted to exclude anyone who'd want to work on something specific...even new players? Or are you saying that new players exclusively queue up? It's about not getting people who are randomly queuing and are NOT particularly interested in working on a feat that the rest of the group is working on.

Also....me + my 4 'people I'm comfortable with' would mean 3 potential additions....not 2. Sorry, but I don't take theology lessons from people who can't do basic math.

And also, if you really believe in this false Deity, doesn't this fall under the general rule of not discussing religion and politics?

Reported

But Tiff....don't you know anyone who does not agree with SOME people is automatically a pariah or some sort of troublemaker?

Okay... So now I have to respond to a completely newly rewritten post...

Once again... This isn't really about walk-ins.

The real tell:
Ask any random player if they ever had to give up waiting for a queue.

Uhhm that's Omnibus, not the clamp.

P.S. Need I remind you that trolling is against the forum rules

I don't have a problem with that....

I mentioned getting/letting new players queuing in after the instance started in the OP.

Would you like to see the manager?

When it comes to someone purposely ruining someone else's thread due to an irrelevant negative disposition, yes I would.

Cool, if you click that report button its like a paging system, short of that you could just scream and start throwing furniture , just let me get my camera first.

Btw on topic, AQS is stupid and really just wants to be used by people not to get that one last player, but to limit the need for other players to the maximum extent possible, but hey we can keep pretending, it's fun!

You be Patrick, I'll be spongebob! Teeheehehehehehe lol

So... Yet, another thread where the naysayers just ignore what is being said to argue what they want to argue against?

Can't you just pretend that your pillow is saying something that you don't like and pretend that the other pillow agrees with you.

It will have the same meaning and you'll accomplish the same result.

So its not about being able to minimize the amount of players you can queue into content with?

You think i dont understand, i do. Its just not healthy for a game with a community our size.

Convenience is nice, but when you need to get as many people in content as possible when their is queue problems across content. Certain conveniences should be saved for when the community is in a better place.