(XB1)KayAitch

Xbox Member
  • Content Count

    397
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

196

1 Follower

About (XB1)KayAitch

  • Rank
    Silver Disciple

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. (XB1)KayAitch

    New loot ideas for the upcoming content.

    Let's look at some other MMOs, because it's often a major problem. For instance Destiny ends up with everyone who's at the current progress cap looking almost the same (with the exception of colour, which is done with gamble-for shaders because Activision suck) because there's only 1 or 2 sets that max them out. A common workaround for this is to have interchangable cosmetics - so you can make one piece of armour look like another you have in your armoury. So you effectively end up with an arcane slot on the armour. But then you have to have it, and some frames just don't look good with most armour. Mesa and Ivara already have shoulder pieces that clip most sets, Volt and Banshee Prime have custom armour that only applies to them, Titania struggles with the vast majority of syndanas, and so on. Maybe we just don't want to add armour pieces. Why not skip all that and just put the arcanes on the frames? Oh, no, wait, DE already did that. One for the arcane helmets they were replacing and one extra. Effectively what you're asking for is an extra 3 arcane slots. I don't think they're going to implement that.
  2. (XB1)KayAitch

    solution for host migrate; let us toggle hosting

    I don't think that's what a straw man is. I'm telling you your plan has side effects you aren't addressing, not making up a fake argument to knock down. You want host-only mode, I get it. Yes, the other approach being implement it and then see, but we don't really have the ability to do that. We don't work for DE, we don't have access to their matchmaking algorithm, of course it's supposition. That doesn't make it invalid. That isn't how development teams work - that bit I do know as I manage them for a living. You want a new setting and a change to the matchmaking code. That isn't free. It takes work on the UI, work on the options save/retrieve, work on the matchmaking algorithm, and testing for all of the above. Testing the matchmaking is particularly expensive. So you're asking them to spend money on something. That isn't a straw man or me making guessing, it will definitely cost them money to make the change you're asking for. How much? That does involve guesswork, but matchmaking code is never simple to change, and most changes are high risk (a build that breaks it will really upset their users) so they'll test it a lot. It's unlikely to be quick, and the kind of software engineers who can do that work don't come cheap either. Either they need new investment to make your change (ie hire new devs) or repurpose existing devs (ie take a decision off something else to do this). In either case they'd put together a business case - a document explaining to management why they want to spend the money, and usually that comes down to making money. So, your change: add host-only mode... What are your benefits? Are you going to spend more money with DE if they do it? Are you likely to leave if they don't? Will implementing this attract new or returning players? You haven't answered any of these questions. Yeah, you want it and it would make your life better, but why should they care if you'll still play and pay anyway? What are your costs? Neither of us know, but DE will evaluate that, so your benefits argument needs to potentially generate more income than that cost figure. What are your risks? You think there are none, fine, but DE will still investigate them. What I'm trying to tell you is that there is a significant risk, and while you can just dismiss/ignore it if you want, DE won't. The team that works on the matchmaking code will be acutely aware of this kind of risk. Maybe they'll agree with you, but they won't just ignore it. To be honest I don't think host-only is a good solution in the first place, I think the real solution is dedicated hosts. It's a sign of Warframe's age that it doesn't have them. That way nobody has host advantage, and the server can persist state so matches can reconnect in a way that users can't.
  3. (XB1)KayAitch

    solution for host migrate; let us toggle hosting

    Of course it is, or are there some people playing Warframe via some company other than DE? I guess you could argue something like that for consoles, but those will be pretty locked down as part of their business model. Microsoft will not let a rival (pirate) client connect to Warframe's servers on X1, for instance. Who are those host-only players going to be playing with? They might not know that they didn't get a shot at being host, but they're definitely affected by it. Again, ping limit is quite different. DE will target and test for a max ping (which really matters in some markets where internet isn't very good) and let you reduce it. Host advantage benefits just you. Better ping benefits everyone in the match. Is that what I described? I compared it to the Prisonercs Dilemma - an unwinnable situation. Not sure where you got utopia from. I don't say "no thanks". I, like most people, want to be host with all the advantages that confers. If I could always be host then I probably would choose that too And if I don't choose to always be host I'll never get to be host, because there will always be someone who's been waiting longer than me for a match where they get to be host. But DE absolutely won't do it, because a secret (or at least obscure) option that makes the game better for some users at a cost to their general player base is bad for business. To make the most money they want the best matchmaking for the most users. Something that benefits some users at the expense of others is unlikely to be worth doing unless that risk could bring them in money to justify the change. Yes, there are probably some corner cases, but 99% of the time, for players with reasonable internet latency and not running on severely outdated hardware (which only applies to a small subset of PC players), it's better to be host. Like you said: "in most cases it is". I'm not. If 1 concurrent player in your matchmaking area turn this on your chance of hosting goes down. If 25% of concurrent players do you'll never get to host unless you switch it on. At some point before then loads of players come on here and ask "how come I never/hardly ever get to be host?" and someone tells them about the option and that % goes up. Above 25% you start really struggling to get anyone a full match because the pool of people you can play with goes down. Imaging 4 people are looking for a match. If 1 is host-only then they're always host and nobody else is, maybe you're right and they don't notice. If 2 host-only then they wait (as you say) but the other 2 players now only get 3 in a match. Everyone now finds it harder to get a full match, and the moaning on here will be about never getting matchmaking, not about hosts. Incedentally, this is a known issue in matchmaking most often caused by old style DLC where some uses would buy new MP maps and others wouldn't. Players without DLC could host those with, but not vice versa. This resulted in either the new maps not coming up in rotation or splitting the matchmaking into two groups. Ultimately everyone waited longer for matches, so fewer people played, so waits got even longer. Er, no dude. It's not really a "burden of proof" - you're making a case for the change, I don't have to make a case for no-change. No change will happen if we do nothing. You are the one who needs to convince people of the value of your change. But yeah, I don't have proof. I know a fair bit about game theory in mathematics and how matchmaking algorithms work under the hood, but I don't work for DE and I'm making an educated guess here. I think your assumption is wrong: that players who don't choose/don't know about this option will be unaffected by it. Anything that changes matchmaking dynamics is going to affect everyone, or at the very least have a risk of affecting everyone. And that's why I don't need to prove anything. DE won't do this because even if the risk of damaging their matchmaking is tiny they're risking a lot of money. Why would they take that bet? If you want this the you need to prove to them that this won't damage their matchmaking, or at the very least have rewards that make the risk worth it.
  4. (XB1)KayAitch

    The polarity of the Umbral MOD

    Shhhhush! 🤫 DE might still add them if we pretend like the leak wasn't all over Reddit, Twitter and YouTube already! 😉
  5. (XB1)KayAitch

    The polarity of the Umbral MOD

    There are rumours of Umbral Forma, but so far these are mods you have to work around. You can use them on frames other than Excal Umbra, but you have to compromise the rest of the build to do so. I think this is because they didn't want the power creep from a new tier above primed mods, but they've ended up with that anyway.
  6. (XB1)KayAitch

    solution for host migrate; let us toggle hosting

    I did go on to explain why. It's not an assumption, it's a principle of game theory (the John Nash kind, not the Matpat one) called the Prisoner's Dilemma: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma Well if that were the case nobody could get a match because they'd all opted to be host-only. They can't all be host. And you don't need 100%, just 25% would be enough to start damaging matchmaking, as once you hit that only people who select host-only will ever get to be host, and in every full match you need the other 75% of players to not be hosts. That doesn't really work here - libertarian objectivism can't apply because Warframe matchmaking will never be a free market. The end goal is not your freedom in the system, it's DE's value. Those goals are aligned (they get more money by making a good game) but they're never going to let you do what you want at the cost of their player base. Well, yes, DE can and do, inside their game. They decide that you cannot just, say, write your own rivens and add them to your save. They write the rules, they get to decide that players get to do. They have to, if you just want to be God in your own system go write your own game, but who else will want to play it? It's millions of dollars of revenue, a couple of hundred people's jobs and a hugely complicated algorithm - the people who write and maintain the matchmaking mechanics will be acutely aware of game theory and the prisoner's dilemma. Odd that, the mathematically minded folks who write software being aware of the mathematics of game systems 😜 Who are they going to be playing with? Only people who don't pick the host-only option, so you'll wait longer for a game and they won't, but they'll be unlikely to be host. So you can host-only and they can host only and you both wait. Or you can host-only and they don't and you win every time, or neither of you is host only and you each win ½ of the time. The non host-only player only wins if everyone else is non host-only. This is the problem with the prisoner's dilemma, and there no assuming is required, there is a ton of research: in any anonmised system people almost always choose the selfish option. Face to face it becomes more of a kind of trust-poker (and there are a ton of games that use this mechanic) but when anonymous and trivial (as you say, it is a game) people are never altruistic. Because then you're limiting your matchmaking to your local area, but they don't lose out by being match made with you - they still get the same chance of being host. I'm trying to explain why it hurts everyone, but in particular it runs the risk of hurting DE's bottom line, which is why they'll never do it. It doesn't matter whether you care about game theory or anyone else in Warframe's matchmaking, but DE want the best experience for the most people. That means no host-only option, sorry.
  7. (XB1)KayAitch

    A fix for Arbitrations

    I think Arbitrations have been a bit of a bust, nobody seems to like them very much. I think the reason is twofold: 1) they're really slow, taking twice as long as regular missions. 2) they kind of suck to play with friends, because instadeath leaves the rest of the team either playing on without a teammate or quitting early. I get what they were going for with the instadeath and longer matches, but I don't think anyone feels it really works. So, the fixes: 1) reward every 5 minutes, not every 10. 2) instead of instadeath just have no revives. Teams could keep their friends playing, and to solo players it would make no difference. 3) Elite Arbitration: start at lvl 100 enemies, sculptures come pre-filled with stars, add rivens and large cash payouts (500k at least) to the reward table.
  8. (XB1)KayAitch

    Idea for vaults / most used mods become flawed

    Why would that be nice? I mean, they aren't really alternative builds, just what you're left with once something is taken away. These are mandatory because they're how you basically level weapons. Most are balanced against early star chart content, so an MR8 weapon with no mods will work OK on Jupiter and might stretch as far as Neptune with the right elements added. Add a damage mod and that shifts up, add the primed to make it stretch to Mot. Take that away and you're left with very little that can hold out. You also have an unpredictable balance that gut punches returning players. We want them to come back and be ok with maybe slightly power drifted kit, not every build nefted to the point where they can't play the content that they used to. And, as others have said, the popularity balance thing both doesn't actually work on Rivens (the mediocre and super rare Brakk is a 2, while the easy to farm and crazy strong Gram Prime is a 5) and is often very unpopular (admittedly with the crazy folks who think buying a riven for real money is an asset like vintage wine, famous paintings or a classic car, but still). I think the problem is a real one, but yours isn't a good solution, sorry.
  9. (XB1)KayAitch

    solution for host migrate; let us toggle hosting

    I think the problem is that everybody wants to be host. This means those with this on will wait longer for public matchmaking, and those with this off are far less likely to get to be the host. I mean, I don't mind not being host, so long as I get my turn. That wouldn't be an option: you're either the master race of host-only, or you're the never host rubes. If more than ¼ of players decide never being host isn't for them you've broken matchmaking - you just have lots of folks who don't want to play unless they can be host. It's basically the prisoner's dilemma - the best common outcome is for nobody to be host-only, and if everyone is host-only you're screwed, you only 'win' if you're host-only and they aren't. For public matchmaking to work it has to be democratic, with everyone on equal footing, or it doesn't work at all. Either that or switch to a 'meritocracy' - whoever has the lowest average ping to everyone else gets to be host. A better solution would be seamless host migration, which should be easy. Reloading the level is a workaround and shouldn't be needed - everyone in the match has a copy of the level and the state of every other player, anyone should be able to take over without resetting everyone's state and reloading all the assets.
  10. (XB1)KayAitch

    So, the Brakk. What's the point?

    Just beat the MR22 test 🙂 To be fair, nobody's going to have that problem - it's not a weapon you get the parts for by MR6 unless you're one of those strange folks who have just one loadout, refuse to play any other and keep asking on here how to get better weapons when they "don't care about MR". Most players are going to be about MR12 before they get it, but given the extra hoops to get it and that it's not tradable the MR really doesn't matter. It can stay MR6, but power wise it should be MR12ish. My point exactly, and good comparison given how beasty the Atmos still is even post nerf (it used to have massive chain range, you could set the whole level on fire). It's a very different type of weapon though. I suppose the closest comparison would be the basic Detron - also MR6 but 30% status so a bit special and overpowered for that MR. From the market I guess the closest would be the MR 5 Kohmak, which does less damage, but mostly slash, longer range, rapid fire and more status chance. The Detron is way better while the Kohmak is roughly parr. Since the Detron is status I'd make the Brakk crit - like 30% base chance.
  11. (XB1)KayAitch

    So, the Brakk. What's the point?

    It's been ages since the Brakk was competitive. Lots of passes. Even if they only moved it ½ a pip each time it would be 4 or 5 by now (it's probably worth a 4 - it's not Convectrix-level useless). Yes, I think that's a common view from players who were around then :).
  12. (XB1)KayAitch

    So, the Brakk. What's the point?

    Yes, but they just did a dispo pass, and have done lots more over the 5 years or so since this weapon was worth using. So can just about anything with the right mods. I could take the Brakk and scrape by, or I could take something like the Mara Detron (a tradable weapon that Baro stocks every 6 months or so, so much easier to get) and own everything on the map and somehow still have a higher Riven disposition. It's not a worthless gun, it's just hard to get and weirdly popular for something so mediocre.
  13. (XB1)KayAitch

    So, the Brakk. What's the point?

    It's decent for MR6. Unless you get crazy lucky grinding the G3 most players are going to get it somewhere MR12+, by which point there are significantly better shotgun pistols. Either the Brakk should be an automatic drop for beating the G3 the first time, or it should reflect that it's so hard to get and be MR12+ with stats to match. I would have guessed something like that, but who's keeping the Riven disposition so low? Anyone love this weapon and able to explain why?
  14. (XB1)KayAitch

    So, the Brakk. What's the point?

    I finally got the final Brakk parts drop from the G3. I'm working on my MR22 test, so this has taken a while. I have killed the G3 a lot, though I haven't gone out of my way to get this. So what do I get for this amazingly hard to get shotgun? A mediocre MR6 weapon with no real stand out qualities. If I'd got it at MR6 I guess it would have been decent, but who's fought the G3 that many times by MR6? Shouldn't it be something special? Maybe 30% status for that magic 100% with 4 60-60 mods? Then again, somehow this has a riven disposition of 2, which is surprising given it appears to be MR fodder. So what's the point of this weapon?
  15. (XB1)KayAitch

    I dont know if this is a bug or If im just bad

    It's not a bug and you're not bad, but your current loadout is a little outclassed by this content. Ash can be one of the deadliest frames in the game, but he sucks at defence missions. Frost is fairly easy to get and is ace at them, Gara is tougher but is probably the best defence frame in the game. The level of your weapons matters much less than what mods you have on them, and you won't have high ranked or primed mods yet. I'd go play the star chart for a bit and then come back to this with more/better kit.