Call center "Ring All" strategy appears to ignore Tier Level

[iaindooley]

Hi there,

I have a Call Center with strategy "Ring All". I have 2 extensions, each assigned to an agent. In Tier 1, I have one of the agents, and in Tier 2, I have both of the agents. All of them have Tier Position 1. I have "Tier Rules Apply" set to True.

I have all the "delay times" on each agent set to 1. I have reloaded the configuration after making changes.

The Tier Rule Wait time is 20 seconds.

What I would expect is that it would ring the first agent for 20 seconds, then ring both agents at the same time for 20 seconds.

However what actually happens is that as soon as a call comes in, it rings both agents.

Thanks,
Iain

 

[pbxgeek]

The ring-all strategy doesn't follow the tier levels. Try one of these:
sequentially-by-agent-order
top-down
ring-progressively (not sure if this one is available in FusionPBX, it is available in FreeSwitch)

 

[iaindooley]

Okay thanks, ring-progressively isn't available in FusionPBX but if I'm understanding correctly:

> top-down: Rings the agent in order position starting from 1 for every member.

Does this mean that I use "tier position" in FPBX (not tier level) and set tier rules apply to false, and set tier level for everyone to 1, and if I just give people the agents the same position number, then they will ring at the same time?

And if I add the same agent twice, at different position numbers, then I can achieve the same result as ring-progressively? eg.:
Agent 1: tier level 1, tier position 1
Agent 1: tier level 1, tier position 2
Agent 2: tier level 1, tier position 2

Will ring Agent 1 for $timeout seconds, then will ring both agents for $timeout seconds?

> sequentially-by-agent-order: Rings agents sequentially by tier & order.

If I choose this, but escalate tier level and set tier rules apply to true, then it will ring those with the same tier position simultaneously:

Agent 1: tier level 1, tier position 1
Agent 1: tier level 2, tier position 1
Agent 2: tier level 2, tier position 1

Thanks again!
Iain