BeergeekTV

Mobile companion app allows user to browse inventory, initiate and claim foundry jobs, put and pull extractors. Since this functionality has been made available outside of the game itself (and requiring user to be logged off ingame) - why not to make public API for developers who work on various warframe-related tools to provide same functionality?

Not exactly correct, at least about frequent leavers not hosting sessions. They do, personally checked this on void fissure missions (lots of them). Got approx. same number of times i was selected as host for exactly same number of sessions I didn't leave, and ones i left immediately on mission start. MVP for this change would be just server side session hosting for missions. Yet there are lots of weak places in current hybrid implementation (wordstate on serverside, game session s on clients).

Somebody who know best practices, have dev<->qa<->business processes working, familiar with git flow and not falling pretending to be dead when hear "acceptance criterias", huh? :D

Take a look on battle.net app, not storing initial credentials locally, getting a auth token, saving token locally, which is passed to a game, which uses this token to identify user associated with it and auto-login him. As was said before - this is trivial and almost no caveats possible with implementation, because it's used for years already by multitude of games/services/etc. Token also has lifetime associated, so while it's still valid but soon to expire, server provides new token. This way the only time credentials are exposed - is when you type those into login form of battle.net app. But DE priorites aren't your gameplay/QOL, it's money first. So.... join the resistance :D

I'd counter this argument. If you aren't upset by problem itself, this post makes you the one upset by post discussing it. So theoretically, you become indirectly upset by problem too :) So not useless banter to my opinion :D

Pursuing our compelling topic of discussion, I'm excited to share a link to another rallying cry. In this piece, you'll find an inspiring case study of another game's community that successfully championed for positive changes, triumphing over the developers' initial reluctance.

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's accurate or valid. However, instead of focusing on personal viewpoints about each other, let's stay on topic, discussing the issue at hand and how we can collectively encourage Digital Extremes to take productive action, rather than debating my right to initiate such a discussion.

Yes, you are: "hilarious that you're a two month old account with no PFP and less than 50 posts making long dramatic speeches about community solidarity". Indeed, I'm here to engage in a debate, keeping closely aligned with the original topic. Any input that piques interest, that draws more people into the conversation, contributes positively to the discussion.

Oh, so you're implying that only the 'old guard', those dating back to early 2013, have any credibility on this forum, correct? I've been an active player of this game since its release, albeit with intermittent breaks ranging from days to months, or even a year. P.S. My fresh EVE Online forum account, less than a month old, managed to stir the pot approx 10 years ago - so much that CCP Games, the creators of EVE Online, not only banned me but hundreds of others. However, it also sparked them to make long-overdue changes. Quite an impact, wouldn't you say?

Technically, some hotfixes did what they required to, some not. And with 10 hotfixes you running into previously seen but fixed bugs - experiencing what developers call a regression. Major causes of this could be: Lack of time to test releases and/or enough of QA people. Legacy code (network, mission initialization, object spawns on map) which is hard to maintain, not talkin about of adding whole new layer of never-seen-before mechanics of Duviri. Minor-to-none acceptance criterias for code merges of releases.

Come join the resistance, we have cookies :D

"I wonder why people don't bother to substantiate their arguments? "No more warnings, no more 'finish the mission, even if it takes an hour', no more 'you must log out in the next 15 minutes', just cut the server at the specified time and you are forcibly logged out." - who said that's bad? Given that all the hotfixes since major release 33 have been addressing networking code among other changes, and the majority of these networking hotfixes are caused by P2P, you just wouldn't have had so many hotfixes in such a short period of time to justify being upset with what you just mentioned. There are hundreds of games with stable maintenance or patch schedules, and their players are okay with that. "Introduce the concept of permanent bad ping for many players who do not have a server in their local area (imagine that you would never, ever be able to play Warframe on anything less than 200 Ping, even while solo)" - where did you get that from? A person playing from a mobile connection (for example) will get a terrible connection to even the closest server. People who play on normal connections (the majority) - will probably not even notice the difference, even if it does exist. Firstly, I'm able to connect to North American servers (not in-game, just random servers in different US data centers) from Eastern Europe with an average of 120ms latency, and 3-5ms jitter. So even with the overhead delay added by the code itself, it's still well within your hypothetical 200ms latency. Secondly, if you are advocating for those who constantly have terrible ping - why should the game focus on them instead of the majority of players with stable internet connections, especially when these people are guaranteed to result in dropped sessions? "Introduce server login limits, just like FF14, Destiny, Diablo and others, where your local servers are simply... full. At capacity. 2-14 Hours to log in after the drop of The New War or Duviri Paradox, depending on your region." - I wonder if you understand what you are saying. Warframe already has login servers, and since the current P2P implementation is adequate for non-competitive sessions, server-hosted sessions will only start putting a load on hardware when people start matchmaking and initiating missions. And the login server in this case isn't even close to having to work within some limit, like in the games you mentioned. You forgot to mention World of Warcraft, which had a single server implementation until they started facing constant queues. But with their sharding approach, where they have a maximum of people playing within the same phase, but being able to talk within the same chat - they made this problem disappear. Now take a look at relays, Dojo, etc - they already have sharding implemented, allowing you to select which one to join based on how crowded it is. So no, with only matchmaking + missions having a network code overhaul to move server-side - you will NEVER see queues. Diablo... Diablo is a poor example, still having small pieces of legacy battle.net code unimproved over decades. "The loss of revenue alone for DE........" - this entire assumption is a real mess. Firstly, not spending profits to improve the quality of life for players? Odd. Secondly, not even considering hiring additional developers + QAs + PMs/POs who could work on networking code in parallel? Odd, although this could slow down new content releases. Thirdly, "buying server space" is no longer something so expensive that it necessitates a P2P instead of a server-hosted session. So, NO, not even close. Fourthly, really? Shutdowns, resets, wipes? Why would they need to do that? It's the networking code being rewritten, not game mechanics being changed and rewritten from scratch. You don't need to wipe "population" because of that. "I would rather DE worked harder on making sure the Host Migration was a better safety net" - as a stopgap for a problem, this will work. In the short term perspective. Releases like Duviri clearly show us how bad it is trying to work with legacy concepts that were acceptable a decade ago (the only excuse for 2013 and P2P was saving money to further develop the game), but currently requiring to fit good new ideas into the tight frame of legacy and very limited network architecture implementation DE currently has for matchmaking and missions. I know you love the game and would prefer to see it running and available for you. And you are okay with how it runs now. But I'm not, and many other people aren't either. And we have every right to ask DE to start actually working on what's genuinely important, instead of trying to band-aid the game's current networking implementation for each new release."

My monthly salary on that, for sure!

Thats "matchmaking" you are describing. And network code for this is decades long ago developed/optimized/explained/described in books/used by dozens/hundred of MMO games that aren't based on P2P game sessions - so i still don't see any "profit" from P2P. People who had bad internet quality will have problems with any network architecture, but without P2P they won't be breaking the game for people who don't have issues with connection. That's the point. I'm not advocating the people who try to play warframe being on 2G/EDGE/dialup/whatever slow connection. Since P2P can't protect us from them runing the gameplay, DE either get rid of them (unrealistic), or re-do network architecture to nullyfy their impact on our gameplay. The rest is quality of life improvements that could be done even with current P2P. For example - session syncing more often. In Duviri context - not when undercroft failed or all people decide to leave - but after every single round won, fixing the rewards and offoading them to players. I don't know why such an obvious QoL feature wasn't introduced initially. With serverside game sessions - this works out of the box, due to the nature of how game sessions will be handled.

Yes, I know that. And I know at least 2 precedents in gamedev history when this forced developers to listen :) So hoping for somebody to do the same for Warframe :D