test content
  • Games
  • Social
  • Arc News
  • Support
  • Zen
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Neverwinter Discussion › Player Feedback (PC)
Options

Being Timed Out for Inactivity Waiting for Random Queue Run is Ridiculous

dionchidionchi Member Posts: 919 Arc User
edited March 2022 in Player Feedback (PC)
I don't know what's changed but it's become a sad reality for players to get inactivity timed out notices while waiting for random queues. Players are discouraged from doing things after joining a random queue because they might miss the join option so basically we just sit around and the "You have been inactive for 10 minutes..." time out notice pops up - often more than once.

First players having to wait 10 to 20 minutes or longer is extremely frustrating and shouldn't occur nearly as often as it does.

Second when a player commits to join a random queue, there should be no option (absolutely none) for a player to “DECLINE” once an instance is available. The player who queued for a random run should be pulled into the instance as soon as it is available, regardless of what they’re doing at the time. Having to wait 10+/- minutes for an instance, then having to wait for another 10+/- minutes because someone declines or doesn’t accept the queue when it’s available is utter idiocy and completely avoidable.

In conclusion either the wait time for random queues to pop need to be made shorter somehow (I thought we already did that though)… or the inactivity timer needs to be increased or eliminated all together for anyone waiting for a random run.
DD~

Comments

  • Options
    plan009plan009 Member Posts: 149 Arc User
    Agree with all but the decline part. I make every effort to accept and it’s extremely rare that I decline, but I’m not going to wait around doing nothing and if something happens that’s more important I will decline. Being forcibly sucked into a q when something more important came up is likely to result in a backlash - there are other ways to decline, such as doing nothing or logging off. If, as discussed in another thread, people get days of penalty for that, well, the Qs will be worse off for it.
    "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
  • Options
    greywyndgreywynd Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 7,093 Arc User
    Or don't be idle while waiting.
    I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
  • Options
    sagakaiyume#0847 sagakaiyume
    sagakaiyume#0847
         Member Posts: 402 Arc User
    Lets be honest, with how useless tanks are in the current RTQs and the fact that a good 80% of the time you seem to end up with 3 healers anyway, they should just make it require 1 tank, 1 healer, 6 dps and 2 anys. At best, double the ques will start moving, at worst you get an alt healer with 20k il and clueless so everyone hopes for the best.

    They could also make even easier versions: No timer tiamat (Get rid of expiration on the soul gems) and for Svaard/cradle, free to re-enter. This que can allow for 10x any roles.
  • Options
    chidionchidion Member Posts: 446 Arc User
    edited March 2022
    greywynd said:

    Or don't be idle while waiting.

    There's the rub, on several quest maps opponents respawn after a time, in certain quests if a player does not complete their run they have to start over at the beginning. If a player the middle of something of a quest and they exit that quest they lose all of their progress and have to start over or take a chance of being attacked as soon as they return.

    I can understand why some people would choose to decline after they've queued for a random run but the fact remains after a 10 to 20 minute plus wait for a random to pop, having to wait another 10 to 20 minutes because of declines is beyond inconvenient to the point of being ridiculous at least that's my thoughts on the topic.
  • Options
    greywyndgreywynd Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 7,093 Arc User
    Yes, but they can also, oh, socialize? Talking in chat keeps the idle timer at bay.
    I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
  • Options
    fritz#8093 fritz
    fritz#8093
         Member Posts: 439 Arc User
    Well it wouldn't hurt to get an auto-accept feature in that you have to actively turn on every time you queue. There are also situations in which you quickly go afk while the group is being assembled, the group leader does no ready check, you don't make it in time, and get kicked (only an issue in random queues). So a build-in ready check, also auto-accepted if wanted, makes sense as well. The reality is that the queue system's qol is horrible, but the good news is it only needs very basic enhancements to make it very decent.
  • Options
    hotfrostwormhotfrostworm Member Posts: 447 Arc User
    Seriously I am surprised they maintain the 15 minute idle timer, with the few players I am seeing, when I do have the time to check out the online activities. On the other hand, there is no reason to be idle in a PUG queue. Other online games only have idle timers to kick players off the server to make room for others waiting to get online. Neverwinter does not strike me as having tens of thousands waiting to play the game.

    At the very least, I would suggest a one hour kick timer. This would assure players who have died at the keyboard are removed. Meanwhile it would be up to the PUG to kick idle the player who fell asleep waiting on the group to assemble. :smile: I often see some people requesting for parties in chat to form up before attempting to queue. As I recall, the queue system had fewer issues, when it allowed 3 to 5 players to enter a dungeon, as opposed to the mandatory five (full party) it currently desires.
    PC Zen AD Exchange - Forecasting Spreadsheet
    PSN Zen AD Exchange - Forecasting Spreadsheet
  • Options
    greywyndgreywynd Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 7,093 Arc User
    fritz#8093 said:

    Well it wouldn't hurt to get an auto-accept feature in that you have to actively turn on every time you queue. There are also situations in which you quickly go afk while the group is being assembled, the group leader does no ready check, you don't make it in time, and get kicked (only an issue in random queues). So a build-in ready check, also auto-accepted if wanted, makes sense as well. The reality is that the queue system's qol is horrible, but the good news is it only needs very basic enhancements to make it very decent.

    Sounds like heaven to botters.
    I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
  • Options
    plasticbatplasticbat Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 12,218 Arc User
    hotfrostworm said:

    As I recall, the queue system had fewer issues, when it allowed 3 to 5 players to enter a dungeon, as opposed to the mandatory five (full party) it currently desires.

    You can have 1 player to go into dungeon in private.
    *** The game can read your mind. If you want it, you won't get it. If you don't expect to get it, you will. ***
  • Options
    fritz#8093 fritz
    fritz#8093
         Member Posts: 439 Arc User
    greywynd said:

    Sounds like heaven to botters.

    In what weird world are bots inactive, like ever? Bots are also never a legit argument against features.
  • Options
    greywyndgreywynd Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 7,093 Arc User
    fritz#8093 said:

    In what weird world are bots inactive, like ever? Bots are also never a legit argument against features.

    Really? Seems to me we've lost a lot of nice features due to botting. Like the Gateway.
    I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
  • Options
    thany#4351 thany
    thany#4351
         Member Posts: 267 Arc User
    Well. There's always what to do. Even if someone has all boons, There're mats for dungeon's keys. Or legacy or stronghold or dread ring or juma's bags or events or... Or you can just go to pe and make a party. Mostly, people are just too lazy to make a group, but it's the fastest way to get into "randoms" q... Specially for dps.
  • Options
    greywyndgreywynd Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 7,093 Arc User
    People ask for runs to specific dungeons. Rarely see them organizing the run.
    I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
  • Options
    fritz#8093 fritz
    fritz#8093
         Member Posts: 439 Arc User
    edited March 2022
    greywynd said:

    fritz#8093 said:

    In what weird world are bots inactive, like ever? Bots are also never a legit argument against features.

    Really? Seems to me we've lost a lot of nice features due to botting. Like the Gateway.
    Well if you build features around botting, you've already conceded. Cryptic started this approach earlier than the Gateway, nerfing or removing skill nodes from certain instances way back. Them taking the easy route doesn't mean it's necessarily in the players' best interest. You might say we can't have nice things thanks to botters, but the reality is that they do not affect the gaming experience of most (because it's imperative to not get 'seen'). It's more a strategic decision by the studio to solve botting at the cost of players, certainly not a necessity.

    Hence my point that it's not a 'legit' argument. Cryptic certainly wants to make you think their hands are tied and point to evil gold sellers, but we all know it's just corporate PR.
  • Options
    greywyndgreywynd Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 7,093 Arc User
    It's nice to know that you have a seat at their planning tables. Tell us more.
    I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
  • Options
    fritz#8093 fritz
    fritz#8093
         Member Posts: 439 Arc User
    greywynd said:

    It's nice to know that you have a seat at their planning tables. Tell us more.

    Don't be an arrogant jerk. If you're not able to participate in a discussion then you might want to consider not posting at all. You offer no context, no explanations. Your usual one-liners that do nothing but educate others are trolling at best, and toxic at worst. Be better.

    I think you're wrong about the suggested additions being a benefit to botters. Adding an anti-afk feature is useless for bots who are by design never afk. Not commenting on your ignorance regarding the other topics, because they're off-topic anyway. Have a nice day.
  • Options
    greywyndgreywynd Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 7,093 Arc User
    Then don't post your assumptions as facts.
    I'm not looking for forgiveness, and I'm way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender, so we're here to fight. And if you want to stand in our way, we'll fight you too.
Sign In or Register to comment.