Please Give VET DLC it's own separate Random group finder queue

profundidob16_ESO

dear dungeon dev team,


you've read the PTS comments and feedback on the new DLC dungeons in vet mode by now. High skilled players love it, above average players think it's too hard and the bulk will fail at it until group disband or simply skip all together.

Also note how large the list of DLC dungeons has become, probably by now as large as the list of original (non-dlc) dungeons which are clearly a joke compared to DLC.

Doesn't the list of VET DLC dungeons deserve it's own queue by now so that true dungeon enthusiasts can find each other for some vet dlc fun while people that only want to complete fast for purple level gear and xp reward (or simply to force a group with fellow cp players) have the option to do so. I firmly believe this would solve a lot of daily hassle and frustation !


@ZOS_Finn

Neoealth

This is not a new idea by any means, seen it posted around on the forums for a while now. But I agree.

profundidob16_ESO

Neoealth wrote: »

This is not a new idea by any means, seen it posted around on the forums for a while now. But I agree.

agreed. The point is to keep bringing this obvious fact to the attention of devs and reaffirm it until they at least acknowledge the design problem and take action. This is too big of a problem to keep ignoring

ayu_fever

i fully support this idea, even for normal mode.

remove them from the queue and give them their own playlist.
the very reason i NEVER use random dungeon finder even on normal is the fear of getting a dlc dungeon.
i simply do not have the time to spend 3 hours of ruins of mozzarella sticks and still not finish it.

in and out. get it done quick.
thats what vanilla dungeons are for.
dlc are another story and shouldnt be treated as such.

the failure rate is just too high because you HAVE TO be fully built and geared up and use mic and communicate with a premade and coordinated group.
they are basically “mini trials” which is fine.
trials dont have matchmaking so neither should any dlc dungeons.
dlc dungeon content is made for the non-casual audience and to preserve that content it should be accessible and attempted by those who have a chance to do it, not the 3K dps who stands in red and blames the CP11 healer who spams bow light attacks.
as a tank player this really gets old after just happening once.

because of reasons not everyone has friends or does guilds.
some people dont take the game that seriously.
some people hop on for a bit and dont want all their time to be stressful and frustrating.

keeping this content out of the random playlist keeps casuals like me from being in there and keeps them from getting nerfed as only serious players have a way to group up and do them because that is the target audience for dlc dungeons.

mocap

nvm )

Nocturnalan

^Already a CP restriction... 300 for DLCs.

Royaji

At least this thread is not afraid to admit that they just want the reward for minimal effort. Random GF has that reward specifically for being a fill-in for people who want to do a specific dungeon.

If you want to do a specific set of dungeons (everything but DLCs) you can choose that as specific dungeons. But this way you forfeit your special reward for doing a random dungeon. That is fair and the way it should work.

idk

It is very simple for Zos to have two tiers of random dungeon.

The first tier includes DLCs and non DLC dungeons. It would have a check box for including the DLC dungeons.

The second tier would be limited to the non DLC dungeons.

Of course an additional reward or higher tier reward would be included for those taking the extra risk of including the DLC dungeons. This is an obvious and certain move Zos would make if they did allow option out of the DLC dungeons.

I expect some would mistakenly call this P2W or some other lame excuse but Zos has a reason to promote the DLC dungeons and this would be a reasonable execution of that and still allow people like OP to opt out of the DLC dungeons when doing a random dungeon. It is a win/win situation.

siddique

ayu_fever wrote: »

dlc dungeon content is made for the non-casual audience and to preserve that content it should be accessible and attempted by those who have a chance to do it, not the 3K dps who stands in red and blames the CP11 healer who spams bow light attacks.
as a tank player this really gets old after just happening once.

Imagine the tank who turns WW on the first boss. -_-

WoppaBoem

I agree, I don't like them I don't play them.

redlink1979

I don't agree with this idea, this is nonsense. If you just don't like them, don't play them.

zvavi

Some of my guildies won't run random vets with me because we got things like brf and scp, while it wasn't a 3 hours run like other people suggested (more like 1), I understand how it can become one, even on normal. I for once would love a random vet dlc dungeon queue. Nothing like testing my healer in an environment that needs one.

(Already have maelstrom for dd's)

srfrogg23

I agree. They should be their own queue. Those dungeons are not designed for PUGs. It's frustrating on both ends.

Either I'm trying to do them because I've got hours to kill but other people keep dropping out, forcing the group into a perpetual cycle of looking for replacements, or I don't have a lot of time and I end up with the 15 min deserter penalty because I had to quit.

coj901

Royaji wrote: »

At least this thread is not afraid to admit that they just want the reward for minimal effort. Random GF has that reward specifically for being a fill-in for people who want to do a specific dungeon.

If you want to do a specific set of dungeons (everything but DLCs) you can choose that as specific dungeons. But this way you forfeit your special reward for doing a random dungeon. That is fair and the way it should work.

Why does this always come up. This is a video game.you still get the reward no matter what dungeon you end up in. Make a separate finder for DLCs. People doing vet DLCs probably aren't using group finder anyways.

Gythral

Please dont ask ZOS to code anything
all that will happen is all the existing queues get new bugs...

anadandy

coj901 wrote: »

Royaji wrote: »

At least this thread is not afraid to admit that they just want the reward for minimal effort. Random GF has that reward specifically for being a fill-in for people who want to do a specific dungeon.

If you want to do a specific set of dungeons (everything but DLCs) you can choose that as specific dungeons. But this way you forfeit your special reward for doing a random dungeon. That is fair and the way it should work.

Why does this always come up. This is a video game.you still get the reward no matter what dungeon you end up in. Make a separate finder for DLCs. People doing vet DLCs probably aren't using group finder anyways.

This. The random daily reward is the same whether you ran FG1 or MoS - using that as a argument against excluding DLC from the list is specious.

VaranisArano

Part of the purpose of the Groupfinder is to backfill groups that lose a member or to fill groups for someone queuing for a specific dungeon.

If you split the DLC dungeons into a seperate queue, groups doing them will have a harder time replacing members and people queuing for them specifically (for gear or a pledge) using groupfinder will have a harder time getting a group. Remember, the DLC dungeon queues are already smaller than the base game ones, limited to +300 CP DLC owners or subscribers.

That's like a double whammy. First, its harder content to begin with, so the attrition rate is higher. Second, split queues makes them wait longer. Even offering a bigger reward for greater risk isnt going to help with that.

Essentially, offering an opt-out of DLC dungeons works against the very purpose of Groupfinder by making it harder for the people who want to run the DLCs to find groupmates using it. Thats true no matter how great the reward you offer is.



Now, the solution to the problem I've pointed out above is to poo-poo the Groupfinder and say "Well, if you want to queue for a Vet DLC, why are you pugging it anyway? You ought to use a guild group or a pre-made group to get gear or do the pledge and everything will go smoother anyway!"

Which is not actually a bad solution. Guild or premade groups tend to work better in harder content, so thats a practical solution for the needs of a player who wants to run that specific dungeon.

However, it still doesn't address the needs of people using Groupfinder to backfill missing members or queue for the specific dungeon from an even smaller pool of tanks, healers, and DDs willing to run the DLC dungeons.


So what this really comes down to is whether ZOS is willing to make Groupfinder work less well and effectively make players form premade groups to do Vet DLC dungeona in a timely manner in order to let other players opt out of content they don't want to do.

Tasear

Just covers up the problem.

VaranisArano

anadandy wrote: »

coj901 wrote: »

Royaji wrote: »

At least this thread is not afraid to admit that they just want the reward for minimal effort. Random GF has that reward specifically for being a fill-in for people who want to do a specific dungeon.

If you want to do a specific set of dungeons (everything but DLCs) you can choose that as specific dungeons. But this way you forfeit your special reward for doing a random dungeon. That is fair and the way it should work.

Why does this always come up. This is a video game.you still get the reward no matter what dungeon you end up in. Make a separate finder for DLCs. People doing vet DLCs probably aren't using group finder anyways.

This. The random daily reward is the same whether you ran FG1 or MoS - using that as a argument against excluding DLC from the list is specious.

Er, personally I think the existence of an exploit in which someone can get Vet ICP as their daily random dungeon, port to Vet FG1, and still get their reward even though they definitely didnt do the random dungeon they got or take the 15 minute queue penalty and try again is a problem.

Its not intended. ZOS is planning to fix it.

The intent is, and this is how we've done it since before we were aware of the exploit, that you run your random dungeon, or you take the penalty and queue again and hope for an easier one. The penalty is there specifically to discourage dungeon hopping and to encourage players to stick with their group.

So, as intended, the argument against excluding the DLC from the random queue is the same as it always has been. The random daily dungeon is you agreeing to run any dungeon. If you get a dungeon you dont like, run it or take the penalty. Again, the penalty discourages leaving your group at the first sight of a harder dungeon.

Obviously, the FG1 exploit runs counter to this intent, allowing players to complete a very non-random choice to get the same rewards, and often abandoning their group in the process.

In short, if the FG1 exploit were intended, rather than an exploit, there would be no need to remove DLC dungeons from the random queue because there's an easy method to skip them.

But since it is an exploit and ZOs intends to fix it, the problem of Vet DLCs remains an issue. (I just remain opposed to removing them for other reasons as detailed in an earlier comment.)

Austinseph1

A single random would be great if the DLC dungeons weren’t many times more difficult than the base game ones. If you like doing random dgs it’s actually punishing to have eso plus. Either bring normal difficulty more in line with eachother and do the same with vet dgs to make them more similar in difficulty or have an option to opt out of them. If I get into a harder dungeon most groups refuse and it’s either port to FG or leave. The want to abuse this is just as much a bug as it is a huge sign of a design flaw. I don’t actually do random dungeons anymore because I’m either in the mood for casual content or hard stuff. Who wants to chance doing Vet moonhunter keep with a PUG for some extra exp haha. Some dungeons are just incredibly more punishing to PUG’s than others.

profundidob16_ESO

VaranisArano wrote: »

Part of the purpose of the Groupfinder is to backfill groups that lose a member or to fill groups for someone queuing for a specific dungeon.

If you split the DLC dungeons into a seperate queue, groups doing them will have a harder time replacing members and people queuing for them specifically (for gear or a pledge) using groupfinder will have a harder time getting a group. Remember, the DLC dungeon queues are already smaller than the base game ones, limited to +300 CP DLC owners or subscribers.

That's like a double whammy. First, its harder content to begin with, so the attrition rate is higher. Second, split queues makes them wait longer. Even offering a bigger reward for greater risk isnt going to help with that.

Essentially, offering an opt-out of DLC dungeons works against the very purpose of Groupfinder by making it harder for the people who want to run the DLCs to find groupmates using it. Thats true no matter how great the reward you offer is.



Now, the solution to the problem I've pointed out above is to poo-poo the Groupfinder and say "Well, if you want to queue for a Vet DLC, why are you pugging it anyway? You ought to use a guild group or a pre-made group to get gear or do the pledge and everything will go smoother anyway!"

Which is not actually a bad solution. Guild or premade groups tend to work better in harder content, so thats a practical solution for the needs of a player who wants to run that specific dungeon.

However, it still doesn't address the needs of people using Groupfinder to backfill missing members or queue for the specific dungeon from an even smaller pool of tanks, healers, and DDs willing to run the DLC dungeons.


So what this really comes down to is whether ZOS is willing to make Groupfinder work less well and effectively make players form premade groups to do Vet DLC dungeona in a timely manner in order to let other players opt out of content they don't want to do.

At first I had this line of thought as well but soon realized the error in it:

Right now the queues for VET DLC and VET non-DLC are together creating indeed a bigger player pool providing "a random player" faster but at the same time 70-80% of that time that is a useless player that ends up leaving or being kicked anyway causing nothing but frustration and delay. It can take kicking/leaving several different people not up the task before finally someone workable arrives.

Splitting the queue ensures that your VET DLC queue delivers only people that are up to that task (or at least queued with that intention...)

Therefore mathematically it's bound to be much more efficient.

anadandy

VaranisArano wrote: »

anadandy wrote: »

coj901 wrote: »

Royaji wrote: »

At least this thread is not afraid to admit that they just want the reward for minimal effort. Random GF has that reward specifically for being a fill-in for people who want to do a specific dungeon.

If you want to do a specific set of dungeons (everything but DLCs) you can choose that as specific dungeons. But this way you forfeit your special reward for doing a random dungeon. That is fair and the way it should work.

Why does this always come up. This is a video game.you still get the reward no matter what dungeon you end up in. Make a separate finder for DLCs. People doing vet DLCs probably aren't using group finder anyways.

This. The random daily reward is the same whether you ran FG1 or MoS - using that as a argument against excluding DLC from the list is specious.

Er, personally I think the existence of an exploit in which someone can get Vet ICP as their daily random dungeon, port to Vet FG1, and still get their reward even though they definitely didnt do the random dungeon they got or take the 15 minute queue penalty and try again is a problem.

I'm not talking about the exploit, which I have never used or even knew about before it came out at that last event - I just happened to use FG1 as the example. I'm talking about luck of the draw - sometimes you pull Spindleclutch, sometimes you pull Ruins of Marzipan. Regardless - the reward is the same - so the argument that excluding DLC dungeons for the same reward is unfair, is specious. Because that's already happening in the normal course of using the GF.

I do agree that excluding DLCs from GF is just covering up the real problem that, in my opinion, is DLC dungeons are just not that attractive to the average player. If the DLC dungeons were such a big draw, they would be able to support their own queue - I don't think they will ever exclude them from the GF because of exactly what you said - the DLC dungeons need GF.

Crafts_Many_Boxes

I've made my stance on this pretty clear in previous threads, and even a few I've created myself.

Probably the biggest issue in this game right now is the devs' insistence that dungeons should be this incredibly difficult event. I'm not big on the racial changes and I still think animation cancelling is dumb, but my biggest beef by far is with DLC dungeons.

I've spoken to plenty of IRL friends who are MMO veterans, and they all agree that ZOS' approach to dungeons is bass-ackwards - dungeons should be fun romps with some mechanics and a little bit of difficulty, but NOTHING like we see in these DLC dungeons. And they just keep making them, to the bewilderment of the vast majority. I don't get it.

Keep the difficulty to your raids. Dungeons have always been the bridge to raiding, not content that's actually harder than most of your raids. It's worked for literally two decades with other equally / more successful MMOs.

Anyway, moving right along from that rant, there are two options to "fix" dungeons in this game:

1) separate the queues, as this thread suggests. As some have pointed out, it does dilute the population, but TBH the people who get DLC in their random queue and didn't want it are probably going to perform so badly in the DLC dungeon that they might as well have not been applicable to begin with. They're essentially just more churn and do nothing to help complete the dungeon anyway. I think in practice this wouldn't be nearly as bad as folks are making it out to be, for that reason alone.

2) Re-balance all dungeons around a standard for normal and a standard for Veteran. This is, IMO, a more elegant solution that makes a lot of sense. I think the "gold standard" for difficulty should be a bit higher than the "2" dungeons from vanilla. Anything tougher, for content like dungeons, doesn't make sense in my mind, especially when your playerbase is like 90% casual and most players can't do over 10-15K dps.

I've been advocating for balanced dungeon difficulty for almost a year now. There's no reason freaking dungeons should be such a pain point in an MMO, they're meant to be a fun step between overland and raiding, nothing more. This particular Dev team got it into their head that they should be a challenge on par with raiding, which is just silly.

BUT, If the dev team wants to keep pumping out these complex, mechanically driven, high-dps check dungeons and change nothing from a systems perspective, they need to actually teach their players how to perform at that level and how everything is calculated.

FrancisCrawford

anadandy wrote: »

Ruins of Marzipan.

Typo of the week! I love it!!

FrancisCrawford

As I've noted before, we could probably get by with as few as three queues:

• Non-DLC normal mode
• Non-DLC vet mode OR DLC normal mode
• DLC vet mode

srfrogg23

Royaji wrote: »

At least this thread is not afraid to admit that they just want the reward for minimal effort. Random GF has that reward specifically for being a fill-in for people who want to do a specific dungeon.

If you want to do a specific set of dungeons (everything but DLCs) you can choose that as specific dungeons. But this way you forfeit your special reward for doing a random dungeon. That is fair and the way it should work.

I guess we could shift the discussion to money, too. People who dont subscribe dont have to worry about being thrown randomly into vet dlc dungeons, either.

Could be a pretty strong incentive to not give Zos money each month. Just sayin...

profundidob16_ESO

By the way,


I often queue vet random not for the rewards (xp bonus, pledge key bonus, purple gear,...) but exclusively for the experience of playing that DLC veteran dungeon with people I've never met before (as opposed to your existing guildies and friend list). This is to keep things spicy because the dungeons and their mechanics I know inside out till boredom but the random people and being able to compensate for less experienced players makes it interesting and fun again.

In other words I like to play them exactly for the random human factor of it. For this exact same reason I still log on to an old game called "Starcraft II" and play daily games of 2 players vs 2AI or 3players vs 3AI.

The only exception is that there the game has long ago implemented and perfected a fully automated system that keeps track of each separate player's performance and ups or downs their level assessment after each game in like 5 levels ranging from beginner all to hard and then elite. So if I'm at elite level and the random finder finds 2 others persons that I've never met that are only assessed currently at hard and medium level we'll be fighting all 3 humans together again 3 different AI's: 1 "medium", 1 "hard" and 1 "elite"

This simple system encourages players to do their best in order to work their way up to the higher assessment levels and ensures it's always a fair and working match. In addition the random finder there groups up people of the same skill level as preferred and only rarely matches 2 persons who are 2 levels apart in skill level. I don't see why ESO completely fails at doing something similar since it works so well.

VaranisArano

profundidob16_ESO wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Part of the purpose of the Groupfinder is to backfill groups that lose a member or to fill groups for someone queuing for a specific dungeon.

If you split the DLC dungeons into a seperate queue, groups doing them will have a harder time replacing members and people queuing for them specifically (for gear or a pledge) using groupfinder will have a harder time getting a group. Remember, the DLC dungeon queues are already smaller than the base game ones, limited to +300 CP DLC owners or subscribers.

That's like a double whammy. First, its harder content to begin with, so the attrition rate is higher. Second, split queues makes them wait longer. Even offering a bigger reward for greater risk isnt going to help with that.

Essentially, offering an opt-out of DLC dungeons works against the very purpose of Groupfinder by making it harder for the people who want to run the DLCs to find groupmates using it. Thats true no matter how great the reward you offer is.



Now, the solution to the problem I've pointed out above is to poo-poo the Groupfinder and say "Well, if you want to queue for a Vet DLC, why are you pugging it anyway? You ought to use a guild group or a pre-made group to get gear or do the pledge and everything will go smoother anyway!"

Which is not actually a bad solution. Guild or premade groups tend to work better in harder content, so thats a practical solution for the needs of a player who wants to run that specific dungeon.

However, it still doesn't address the needs of people using Groupfinder to backfill missing members or queue for the specific dungeon from an even smaller pool of tanks, healers, and DDs willing to run the DLC dungeons.


So what this really comes down to is whether ZOS is willing to make Groupfinder work less well and effectively make players form premade groups to do Vet DLC dungeona in a timely manner in order to let other players opt out of content they don't want to do.

At first I had this line of thought as well but soon realized the error in it:

Right now the queues for VET DLC and VET non-DLC are together creating indeed a bigger player pool providing "a random player" faster but at the same time 70-80% of that time that is a useless player that ends up leaving or being kicked anyway causing nothing but frustration and delay. It can take kicking/leaving several different people not up the task before finally someone workable arrives.

Splitting the queue ensures that your VET DLC queue delivers only people that are up to that task (or at least queued with that intention...)

Therefore mathematically it's bound to be much more efficient.

Depends. Its a bit odd and hard to predict. I'll fully admit its hard to argue for or against the impact of the queue without data that only ZOS has on vet DLC completion rates. Still, we can argue in generalities.

So, first, the Vet DLC queue is inherently limited to: 300+CP Subscribers and DLC pack owners...who are currently queueing for all random or those specific dungeons. That's a fairly small pool to begin with compared to the closest base game equivalent in Vet COA2.

The suggestion proposed would cut the Vet DLC queue pool further to: 300+ CP Subscribers and DLC pack owners who actually want to and theoretically can do the DLC dungeons...who are currently queuing up to run a dungeon. In this case, the higher the demand for opting out of the Vet DLCs, the smaller the final pool becomes. Unavoidably, a small queue pool becomes smaller and backfilling or filling groups with Groupfinder takes longer.


Now, we can argue, as I believe you have done if I understand correctly, that this final smaller queue pool of players who want to queue for Vet DLCs is in fact identical to the current pool of "players who can do Vet DLCs, don't leave, and don't get kicked". If this is indeed the case, then, we should see no practical difference. Any longer wait time for groupmembers at the beginning should be made up for with greater efficiency in the dungeon itself thus making for a better experience all around once you find a group.

Personally, I am more skeptical that those two groups are in fact one and the same. I expect that even this smaller queue of players will suffer from having to leave groups or having to kick players, and thus will also suffer from the longer replacement times due to a smaller queue pool.

The matter of extra rewards is also a double-edged sword. The better the rewards ZOS offers, the more unqualified players will join the queue. The less substantial rewards ZOS offers, the less that qualified players have reason to join the queue.

I'm of the opinion that the best method for filling and backfilling groups in a timely manner through the Groupfinder is the current method where there is not a seperate queue. That is, after all, the purpose of Groupfinder.

Now, true, those groups formed, filled, or backfilled, by Groupfinder have no guarantee of being able to complete the dungeon beyond meeting the minimum requirements. Doing so would require ZOS to increase the minimum requirements as they've done in the past, or for even better results, groups to form premades or guild groups with players they know. Premade and Guild groups will always be the most efficient way to complete hard content.

VaranisArano

anadandy wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

anadandy wrote: »

coj901 wrote: »

Royaji wrote: »

At least this thread is not afraid to admit that they just want the reward for minimal effort. Random GF has that reward specifically for being a fill-in for people who want to do a specific dungeon.

If you want to do a specific set of dungeons (everything but DLCs) you can choose that as specific dungeons. But this way you forfeit your special reward for doing a random dungeon. That is fair and the way it should work.

Why does this always come up. This is a video game.you still get the reward no matter what dungeon you end up in. Make a separate finder for DLCs. People doing vet DLCs probably aren't using group finder anyways.

This. The random daily reward is the same whether you ran FG1 or MoS - using that as a argument against excluding DLC from the list is specious.

Er, personally I think the existence of an exploit in which someone can get Vet ICP as their daily random dungeon, port to Vet FG1, and still get their reward even though they definitely didnt do the random dungeon they got or take the 15 minute queue penalty and try again is a problem.

I'm not talking about the exploit, which I have never used or even knew about before it came out at that last event - I just happened to use FG1 as the example. I'm talking about luck of the draw - sometimes you pull Spindleclutch, sometimes you pull Ruins of Marzipan. Regardless - the reward is the same - so the argument that excluding DLC dungeons for the same reward is unfair, is specious. Because that's already happening in the normal course of using the GF.

I do agree that excluding DLCs from GF is just covering up the real problem that, in my opinion, is DLC dungeons are just not that attractive to the average player. If the DLC dungeons were such a big draw, they would be able to support their own queue - I don't think they will ever exclude them from the GF because of exactly what you said - the DLC dungeons need GF.

Ah, I understand now! Thanks for the clarification.

And I generally agree that harder dungeons (and the groups that run them) benefit the most from the groupfinder and the 15 minute queue penalty.

It'd might be interesting to see what could happen if ZOS turned the DLC dungeons into "mini-Arenas" closer to Dragonstar or Blackrose Prison instead of Groupfinder dungeons.

Delpi

VaranisArano wrote: »

Part of the purpose of the Groupfinder is to backfill groups that lose a member or to fill groups for someone queuing for a specific dungeon.

If you split the DLC dungeons into a seperate queue, groups doing them will have a harder time replacing members and people queuing for them specifically (for gear or a pledge) using groupfinder will have a harder time getting a group. Remember, the DLC dungeon queues are already smaller than the base game ones, limited to +300 CP DLC owners or subscribers.

That's like a double whammy. First, its harder content to begin with, so the attrition rate is higher. Second, split queues makes them wait longer. Even offering a bigger reward for greater risk isnt going to help with that.

Essentially, offering an opt-out of DLC dungeons works against the very purpose of Groupfinder by making it harder for the people who want to run the DLCs to find groupmates using it. Thats true no matter how great the reward you offer is.



Now, the solution to the problem I've pointed out above is to poo-poo the Groupfinder and say "Well, if you want to queue for a Vet DLC, why are you pugging it anyway? You ought to use a guild group or a pre-made group to get gear or do the pledge and everything will go smoother anyway!"

Which is not actually a bad solution. Guild or premade groups tend to work better in harder content, so thats a practical solution for the needs of a player who wants to run that specific dungeon.

However, it still doesn't address the needs of people using Groupfinder to backfill missing members or queue for the specific dungeon from an even smaller pool of tanks, healers, and DDs willing to run the DLC dungeons.


So what this really comes down to is whether ZOS is willing to make Groupfinder work less well and effectively make players form premade groups to do Vet DLC dungeona in a timely manner in order to let other players opt out of content they don't want to do.

If people don't queue for them it's because people don't like to do them.... so.... well...

karekiz

1. Before this is ever implemented ZoS would need to fix the "Zone in / zone to another dungeon reward" system. Whats stopping someone form Randoming DLC then just zoning into FG1 for now X2 rewards?

2. The rewards need to reflect the increase in difficulty. I have always loved giving good sellable rewards for content <motifs that have been utterly destroyed now since they said "Lets give motifs for all!"> so something to at least replace that would be nice.

Maybe undaunted plunder? 5K for the run? Thats not bad and sells for more than some of the dungeon DLC motifs do now. Other reward could be the gold geode for transmute similar to the PvP reward.