Jarriaga

If all of that was implemented then I would not push for dedicated servers. 10-20 seconds of downtime between migrations would not be a problem if all else was solved.

I gave you the sources of those numbers in the very post you quoted. If you have a problem with them and think that they were pulled out of thin air then either bring a better source and correct those numbers, or take it Valve and how they track achievement unlocks per game per registered player. Otherwise it would seem you are disregarding them simply because you don't like them regardless of accuracy if you can not provide a source that would not be described as "thin air" by you. No idea, but that is an irrelevant argument considering the many times I have specified this would be an optional opt-in fee explicitly for those who do want it. "Optional payment" and "needing to pay" are incompatible terms. They can make a market study based on those players who would be willing to pay and measure their in-game spending habits to see if they are enough to sustain themselves. If we want to pay and offset the costs, let us pay and offset the costs. Let us be more than a "vocal minority" and actually speak with our wallets. That's off-topic. We are not discussing why players have not progressed enough. We are simply taking the number as a reference in order to counter the investment costs that take the entire playerbase into account rather than those players who would explicitly choose to pay for the service in a game mode that has been gutted due to host migration issues (DE explicitly said that they introduced the rivival system in Arbitrations because of hosts leaving after dying) and can get you killed or a mission failed state during the migration process, which is unacceptable to me and many others. Then don't. If the system I propose is implemented, you would not need to pay a cent unless you willingly change your matchmaking settings from "Public" to "Dedicated Server", which I am certain you won't ever do considering you have made it clear it is not for you or those who think like you. That's fine. I have no interest in Conclave. And not only did it fix nothing because the game keeps running and you can die while the migration happens, you now have a system in which your chances of dying increase if someone other than you actually dies because of the revive tokens work like Index points likely as a way to push you to get rid of those revive tokens instead of hording them while ignoring the dead player (I would certainly do that if it didn't affect me). No one said that they are. It's just that not being at the mercy of another player that can leave at any time is a worse option than a server that would only kick me out when it is experiencing an actual problem. I've picked my poison. I don't think this would be an issue if the servers would only accept connection requests from players who have unlocked Arbitrations. Otherwise you are proposing the absurd scenario that a player would clear the entire Star Chart only to DDoS DE and get themselves banned. I am not proposing dedicated servers for the entire game.

No one is under the delusion that they are 100% problem-free. It's just that the problems that they do have are still a lot more acceptable than dying during a host migration because the host left. They don't have to. Your end of the pipeline still means you need a good stable connection. I have one. I often host and players have even asked about my Internet connection speed or ISP because of the low latency. That doesn't help one bit when the game decides someone else happens to have a better connection, and they leave. I can't control that. I actually like this idea as long as the punishment for repeated offense is severe-enough to minimize that behavior. A slap in the wrist would do nothing. Still, DE would need to solve the problem of the game still running when a migration does happen for XYZ reason. That's a non-issue since I don't care about the region of players I'm playing with. I am currently limited to North America anyway due to my extremely low PING limit settings so I can try to host as many times as possible, so I don't care if I can't play with people from Europe. That's also a non-issue unless you happen to believe the number of people who want dedicated servers (Even if paid) is large-enough as to cause a noticeable split in the playerbase. And if that's the case, then the problems caused by P2P connections are not trivial. Otherwise, dedicated server players (Particularly if the service is exclusive to Arbitrations as I propose) would amount to a tiny minority. Never even mentioned. Not once. I mentioned optional, selectable as a toggle with an opt-in server upkeep fee for those who do want it. No need to mention scenarios that directly contradict the proposal. My proposal is an optional setting in your matchmaking menu that explicitly says "Dedicated Server". If you don't choose this option and instead select "Public", you use the current P2P system.

I am, if given the chance to. I'd rather get reliable but paid than crappy but free. Also, if you do not want to pay, you would not have to if it's an opt-in toggle as I proposed in my opening post.

Didn't kill me, but they did kill the Zephyr player. Also (And more importantly), a Conduit was destroyed. This directly affects the mission as we could have failed.

One reason would be so they are not forced to rethink their own gamemodes for the worse in order to accommodate hosts leaving missions. Case in point? Again, Arbitrations. The reason they gave for introducing the dreadful and mostly hated revival system was to address hosts leaving the mission after they died. That's something what wouldn't have been necessary with dedicated servers. And for the future? Squad link. While we don't know how that will work, I'm having a hard time seeing it work with multiple host migrations now on both ends (Main squad, support squad).

It would not solve it unless it keeps a "snapshot" of the game's state prior to migration. That means, keeping you Arbitration bonus and melee combo counter. If that is done then I'd agree there would be no need for Dedicated Servers. However, I have never seen a P2P game do that. The session kinda "resets" during the migration process. Hence why so many thing break.

Yes, which I and many others see as a problem for game balancing. Nuking everything is why the game is so easy, and CC abilities (Which are cheaper energy-wise) are made irrelevant when nuke abilities can be made to be as cheap as CC abilities. It all has a ripple effect. I already don't. More so, I don't play nuke frames either. I don't see the point here. Plus, the problem here is how nukes can be spammed so reliably that you don't even need to use your weapons, further making the game easy. The time I nerfed myself for testing was by removing damage mods. I do not feel like I am not making any progress because I am MR27, I have every single weapon and frame in the entire game except Zenith, I have every single mod I am interested in, 2 max-rank copies of every Arcane I use, and have maxed-out all 5 focus schools. Where do I go from there? Where do I put all of that to use? Where do I test if farming all of that was worth it with regards to challenge? Where am I required to use all of that just to stay alive? You can disagree with me all you want. I am not surprised, and I am happy to stand my ground and defend my points. Waframe felt a lot better at the beginning of the game because I felt challenged. I felt I was making progress because I felt I was catching-up to the game. It was slow and gradual. It felt like progress. It felt like I was becoming more powerful. But then there's that wall in which rather than feeling you're becoming powerful, everything just became weaker. There's a sudden jump in power with a gap the game was not prepared to handle that it feels you were never meant to be that powerful, because the game was not designed for it.

You don't know if they are considering it or not. DE not addressing a topic does not mean they are not considering it. Did anyone see that Ember rework coming so soon considering DE had not even hinted at her being reworked prior to its announcement? No. It was only mentioned by Scott a week before its announcement in a way that implied they may start working her after Vauban, not that it was so far ahead done that it would come alongside him. Quite the contrary. They more often that not give a flat-out "no" to things they are not looking to implement, such as frame gender swap skins. Not relevant if it's focused around the number of players playing Arbitrations, which are 10,000 at the absolute best per platform. Not to mention, those of us who do want it would be willing to pay for them, yes. More so if it is an optional toggle that would still allow you to keep your oh so wonderful P2P connection if you choose. They lagging or not working 10% of the time is still miles ahead an improvement over host migration issues. No solution is perfect. No one is saying this will 100% address all problems at all times. Only that it would still be a lot better than what we currently have.

I said so in my opening post in case you either didn't read it or chose to ignore that section, so yes, I would definitely pay for it.

That post and those costs are only relevant when considering the total number of Warframe players, not those only playing Arbitrations. As per Steam achievement stats, only 5.3% of players have completed The Sacrifice. Without completing The Sacrifice, you can not fight the Ropalolyst, so it can be used as a baseline to measure how many players have cleared the entire Star Chart and have unlocked Arbitrations. Using stats for the average number of unique peak last month (80,466), we can infer that, at the very top (Assuming the absolute best-case scenario of 5.3% of players having unlocked Arbitrations) that's only 4,023 players. I seriously doubt that Steam has fewer active players than the stand-alone version, and even then, I also doubt that they are more active than Steam players. Entertaining this idea with a generous 50% split, we are now only dealing with 8,046 players. Let's add consoles now. Xbox (Trueachievements) - 6,749 players have completed The Sacrifice (6% of tracked players). PS4: No reliable data. Let's assume 20% more than XBox = 8,098 Switch: No reliable data. Let's assume 60% less than Xbox: = 2.699 Those are such tiny numbers that the upkeep costs for the pricing breakdown that floats around this board is so far away that it becomes meaningless. More so considering those players like me who would be willing to pay for dedicated servers, so it would not be on DE's sole pocket. That could certainly help, yes. That is, assuming that the game holds a "snapshot" of how it was before the migration so you can also keep your Arbitration bonus. I don't think players who have distance-related connectivity issues would choose to opt-in to an optional, toggable dedicated server option that is only available if you're paying for it. That's a non-issue. As for the rest? If I know my connection is stable-enough and fast-enough that I rarely get disconnected on my end, then it would certainly improve my experience by a noticeable margin.

I saw your edit now. Indeed, that could work as well.

That would work towards addressing performance-related migrations, but not those caused by the host leaving for XYZ reason.

While this topic has the community split which each side presenting why they support or dislike the idea of dedicated servers, the majority of players can agree that hosts migrations are a problem. A problem that is further amplified when there's a host migration during an Arbitration. In the past, I have experienced losing my frame and weapon Arbitration bonuses because the host left and forced a migration. This can completely break your build when you change your mods to capitalize on that 300% power bonus. It can mean leaving your current left-over build useless, which in turn means you now have to leave or risk dying. Yesterday, I experienced this problem's most extreme scenario during a Disruption Arbitration after the original host left and caused a migration. While this happened, 1 conduit was destroyed and 1 player was killed because the game kept going until the host migration process was completed. Something that wouldn't have happened with dedicated servers. And it's not only in Arbitrations. This can also be seen in ESO as well; efficiency continues to drop during a host migration until the new host is selected and the game resumes for the players. I have experienced efficiency drops of 35% during this process, which can be hard to recover depending on who is playing with you, the map, and the enemy faction. Some players are concerned about distance to the servers and DE's bottom line as arguments against dedicated servers. They even propose workarounds like setting your PING limit to the absolute lowest, which not only decreases the number of players that you can connect with, but doesn't address the problem when paired with someone with a better connection hosting over you and that person still leaves, which is something you can not control. DE should consider dedicated servers at least for Arbitration missions. The pool size of players who have unlocked Arbitrations is minuscule when compared to the overall number of total players, which greatly reduces the investment costs that would be required to set them up. Distance is not a concern if server distribution is focused around the highest number of Arbitration players, and server costs for DE could be minimized if players like are allowed to speak with their wallets and pay a maintenance fee for the upkeep of the servers. If this is implemented with an option to still opt-out of dedicated servers using the current connection selection toggle (Solo, Public, Friends-only, Invite-only, Dedicated Server) I fail to see how this would be a problem for those who don't want dedicated servers unless they happen to believe that those who want them outnumber them to the point they wouldn't be able to join P2P games consistently, which goes against their usual arguments of "the vast majority of players are against dedicated servers". Not being at the mercy of another player is an advantage that outweighs any downside in my opinion.

Nerfing energy would not not affect how much damage you can deal when using abilities. The difference is that you would not be able to continuously spam abilities left and right as if you had an infinite energy cheat code.