schilds

There's no "mid mission" matchmaking. That's the point. The system for deciding hosts that DE is talking about and you're referring to is part of mission setup. It doesn't happen mid-mission. Host migrations mid-mission are disconnects or desyncs (or the host extracting). You cannot join a game mid-mission, already being hosted by someone, and force a host migration. What happens (or maybe, should happen*) is that you just don't join that mission. Why is this even an argument? That would be terrible design. * Note there is a setting that filters based on ping, but someone can have great ping (at the time you join them) and still be a terrible host.

This is how it works when a game is being established (whether through matchmaking or a private lobby), but not how it works when joining an already established (mid-mission) game.

So: 1. Any game they start themselves (e.g. if no-one else is doing that mission) will have to be solo (as no-one can join after). Might be ok? Would probably end up solo a lot of the time. 2. Host migrate if someone on a more stable platform joins. Would need seamless host migrations which ... I just don't see happening. DE have had a decade to get this right and yeah nah. 3. *cough* Dedicated servers. *cough* Makes the most sense. DE wouldn't need to shift the entire player population to dedicated servers. They could provide a pool of hosts to draw from when a problematic device starts a public mission that has no-one else to host it.

I think you're right but it was a little confusing because Space Mom started saying "2 deep archimedea and 1 netracell" while Pablo was saying "1 deep archimedea and 3 netracells".

Pablo says (at 1:03:12) that the early tiers are "exactly the same rolls as if you are doing a netracell". The GUI in the video is probably placeholder/incomplete, it only lists the common drops.

I think it's a bit of a shame that squad link didn't work out. I'd to suggest what is hopefully a simple, non-invasive implementation to test and maybe incrementally build/iterate on. Around the starchart there are missions/objectives that are linked to each other. The links are uni-directional, between a source and one or more target missions. There is a console in the source mission that activates after completing the objective (this would be the main objective in most missions). The console may be used to trigger some helpful effect in the target mission. In endless missions, the console activates once per rotation, players can visit it somewhere on the map. In short missions, the console would be just outside the extraction zone. The player using the console gets a snapshot of (some of) the squads running the target mission(s) to choose from. The target squad receives assistance as a drop pod with the sender's name(s) on it. It's up to them to activate (they may want to avoid interference even if it's well intended). That's it. Keep it as simple as possible. Basically just one squad sending a friendly hello to another squad. This is about having a bit of fun, adding some cross-starchart gameplay, and maybe some community building. If it works then maybe something more involved can be built on it. Some examples: Kahl missions are linked to archon hunts. Completing a Kahl mission lets you send some Grineer bros to help a squad doing a hunt. Each open world is linked to all missions on a planet, with a number of different objectives, each provides a different type of assistance (healing tower, spectres, etc). Maybe those somewhat pointless capturable bases in Orb Vallis could be re-purposed. POIs/objectives in Railjack missions could be linked to ground missions on the same planet.

So they're optional both: - in the true sense of the word because you are not prevented from picking anything you like, and - in the sense of efficient/optimal play that some people are trying to push. At this point I have to assume some people are just deliberately scaremongering.

They're optional. Some people are trying to argue that to play efficiently you will *have* to go for the max bonus and that means you will be "forced" into max restrictions. However, the max bonus you can get is (according to the dev stream) a guaranteed legendary arcane. If that's the case, then given that you will max out your arcanes at some point just by rng, the top bonus is a dead reward for anyone who prioritises shards and isn't interested in farming arcanes to trade. That means most people will want to stop at the gold bonus, will be able to ignore multiple restrictions, and still play efficiently.

Wow ... came to this thread expecting to see complaining about complaining and ran straight into a canine tragedy.

I generally agree with the sentiments expressed in this thread. DE seem to expect players to be mind readers. That said, in a sense their intent is expressed (poorly) in the increasing levels of each bounty (in comparison to startchart mission levels) and the daily standing cap. Maybe accumulating some number of bounties (or MR or something) should trigger minor delivery "quests" from various npcs to places further along the starchart, not as time-fillers, but to nudge players on their way and roughly signal where DE expects players to be at different progression points. Kind of "hey, you've spent too much time here, go somewhere else".

I think the intention is that new players will progress their star chart and (re)visit open worlds one small nibble at a time.

You will complete your arcanes via rng even without the guaranteed arcane, at which point every time you get an extra arcane you will say "oh darn, I wish I had given myself more chances at shards instead of hurrying my arcane collection".

The top bonus is a guaranteed legendary arcane. There's no reason to go for it unless you want to hurry your collection or for trading. Most people, once they've completed their arcanes, will see it as a dead reward. If archon shards are your priority then it's a dead reward *in advance*, knowing that you will eventually cap your arcanes through rng long before you finish farming archon shards. Hence, for most people, playing at max bonus is not about efficiency or optimization and feeling "forced" is an issue of their own pyschology.

There's a few things that really come down to what's going on in your own headspace. Seeing this as "forced" is one of them. Some examples: 1. Some people think that if their loadout can't handle survival without ever touching a life support tower, then it's not viable. You don't *need* to only subsist on enemy kills for life support, but some people get it into their heads that it's a failure if they can't. This is a headspace issue. 2. Some people think that if a player can't carry an entire squad with their loadout, then they're leeching. Never mind that this is a co-op game and if everyone in a squad of 4 does 25% of the work, then that's a fair share. Again, headspace issue. This is the same. The max bonus we've been shown is not necessary and it's up to the player what tradeoffs they make. Where in Duviri you are restricted in your options, in this new game mode you can take your favourite frame + weapon if you want, but are encouraged to try out other things. If you see this as "forcing" then it's an issue of your own psychology.

All this flexing and arguments over "high level" aside (I did not expect my statement regarding viability of frames to be so controversial, but whatever) ... I think people will find this game mode to be less restrictive than they currently fear it will be, assuming it is released as presented in the dev stream, with the gold* bonus looking like the highest level most people will care to reach, meaning there will be some flexibility to leave out multiple restrictions of their choice. * Most people will only go for the highest level bonus to complete their legendary arcanes faster.

Any weapon? You obviously did not actually read what I said. I'll engage with you when you decide to engage with what I actually said, and not your own modified, cherry picked, strawman version of what I said.

Interesting how some people can't see the contradiction in flexing references to "level cap" while simultaneously complaining that making a few *optional* tradeoffs to fight enemies 9699 levels below cap is too much of an ask. Are you trying to argue that the new mode will be too difficult or too easy? Make up your mind.

There's no small amount of irony in people complaining about the difficulty of having to make a couple of tradeoffs for lvl 300 enemies and then bringing up "level cap".

Another person who has to git gud.

Git gud, mate.

1. It's optional. 2. All it takes is one decent weapon in a loadout and you're set. *Every* frame can be modded to be viable in *any* high level content, so at worst you'll get three terrible weapon choices and have to give up just *one* bonus for a decent weapon. 3. The top bonus may not require taking *all* presented options. 4. The top bonus is a guaranteed legendary arcane. Since at some point your set of arcanes will be completed, forcing extra arcanes will probably not be what most people want anyway. That means the gold bonus is going to be good enough unless you're farming legendary arcanes to trade. DE can *never* satisfy people who want everything their way, and shouldn't even try, quite frankly.

They're glued on.

As long as the gimmick is that it behaves like a proper bow and not a launcher, shotgun, melee weapon, grakata or something else.

Wow ... When I started, I think it took a year!

There is an npc at the arbiters of hexis with a list, iirc. I think there is some other way to check as well, but I forget what it is. Vaguely recall it might be related to Duviri.