Change Munin's Banish Map Timer

The current 2-minute timer in Munin’s Banish map is too short, especially compared to timers in other bossing contexts (e.g., CWKPQ Archer’s room has 15-minute timer, Core Blaze has 1-hour timer, etc.).
This creates issues for players dealing with unexpected emergencies, making it unfair and stressful.
Extending the timer or adjusting the mechanics would alleviate these issues while maintaining gameplay integrity.

Proposal A: Increase the Banish Map Timer
Extend the timer to at least 10 minutes, providing more flexibility for emergencies.
Pros:
1. Provides adequate time for players to handle emergencies.
2. Prevents unnecessary expedition disruption due to the existing mechanincs.
Cons:
Potential for abuse by players AFKing deliberately for extended periods.
Luckily, exploitation is very visible due to inherent mechanics (e.g., Party HP Mark, Banish animations, /find command, etc.) and such exploiter(s) can be penalized.

Proposal B: Re-warp Players back into the Expedition once Banish Map timer ends
Automatically return players to the expedition when the timer runs out (an alternative to manually existing Banish map's using its portal).
Pros:
1. Ensures players can rejoin the fight, reducing the impact on the party.
2. Accommodates emergencies without requiring manual intervention.
Cons:
May encourage players to intentionally wait out the timer instead of teleporting right back. Just as presented in Proposal A- optional penalty systems could deter intentional misuse and transparent communication can help players and parties.

On a personal note, I found the current mechanics to be very challenging today due to an emergency situation where I had to rush to a shelter after a siren went off. My country faces ongoing missile and cyber attacks.
I sincerely hope this suggestion is given the consideration it deserves.
Wishing you happy holidays, stay safe, and thank you for creating a safe and enjoyable space for many of us!

 

Regular Pink Bean runners have consistently demonstrated credibility and respect for the expedition mechanics, strategies and policies- making them unlikely to misuse features. Emergencies, as I’ve defined them, involve needing to AFK for extended periods—true, unavoidable situations. These are very different from minor interruptions like a doorbell, which can typically be handled quickly and without significant disruption.

While Proposal A does present risks of encouraging AFKing, potentially undermining the squad’s efforts, Proposal B presents a more balanced compromise. By warping banished players back, it allows brief AFKs but also introduces risks like being seduced or dying. It ensures that players can rejoin the fight once ready, especially when supported by resurrections, healing, or shields from their fellow expedition members.

I remain firmly against re-warping for disconnections. Such issues stem from a broad range of technical factors and addressing them demands significant resources beyond what this discussion can accommodate. Moreover, re-warping disconnected players has a far greater potential for negatively impacting the expedition compared to a simpler adjustment, like repurposing a portal or modifying an existing timer.

Returning to the current discussion, perhaps a more intermediate solution could be proposed.

 

What does this have to do specifically with this thread? Accountability for ToS infringement applies equally to all players, not just those in PB and not just its hosts/party leaders.

I do not wish to involve myself, judge or debate about the actions of specific squad(s). That topic is beyond the scope of this discussion, and fortunately, I wasn’t part of it.

I’ve laid out the pros and cons of each proposal in detail. At the end of the day, this is a suggestion thread—its purpose is to present ideas, which can either be adopted or set aside.

 

Regarding Proposal B- what are the flaws of bringing mules in or having the ease to use them as long as aggro or such is not abused? We might derail this with this question but I think it allows to create much more runs than we used to and proportionally introduce PB to much more players/characters.

Uhhhh no? It seems wrong and that's not what I suggested.

However- in hindsight, I do agree proposal A is much less viable than proposal B.