Hosts shouldn't be allowed to leave the team...

[fr4gb4ll]

13 hours ago, GnarlsDarkley said:

To show you my opinion on this topic. Host is being picked by the best connection while matchmaking.

If I forget to change some equipment or just picked the wrong mission. Or maybe my little child just heads up and wants sth I have to quit.

I cannot and won't stay 40 rounds of Hydron or 8hrs of Ophelia with one of the above mentioned issues.

Your title is so shortsighted that I don't even need to read your post to know it's a stupid idea no matter what options you suggest

your opinion is noted, but the way you did was rather "unprofessional" imo, therefore my snide answere. i still can't share your opinion though, but that doesn't matter.

as for the "Host is being picked by the best connection while matchmaking." statement of yours, it's likely what DE would like to tell us too, but anyone how played this game as long as you and i, should noticed long ago that this very often is not the case. what DE does, is making an one-time-test of the latency of all players it tests for during a short given timeframe... this sadly won't show any wonky connection where the ping of a client to the host can "oscillate" between very low values in one second to near-orbital high ones the next second. those host are far worse than such with a constant high ping, for they tend to give the client(s) very likely the infamous loss of connection issue. and even with you having correctly setting your zone in the options and playing during your zones "rushour" the chances are good that you still get connected to a host on the other side of the globe. i know this because i often ask the host where they come from when i notice a high ping and also asking (trusting them to not having a reason to lie about it) if they had set my zone in warframes options.

so no, DE does not always or even very often choose the best host available - they rather try to go a "middle way" between the quality of connection from a host to possible clients and the waiting time otherwise a player had to "suffer" to really optimize a matchmaking. again, a bit more customisations for the users would be a nice way - even though i guess most people wouldn't know how to use them for their best effect (or their liking).

as for being "forced" to stay 40 rounds or hours in any given mission, you only made this up yourself, i never suggested this - but ofc, if you never read anything i wrote, you wouldn't know that i specifically wrote how the host can end the mission/instance for him/herself without putting the rest of the team at risk because any selfish methods. also, keep in mind, that what you described is the way the some of the endless mission are handled since the beginning of warframe and were complained about as long too. i also would prefer that anyone can end any mission whenever one wants too, BUT only in a way it does not put the rest of the team into trouble of losing their efford - not being able to run an endless mission further with one player wanting to leave, isn't a valid reason imo, annoying maybe at times, but not forcing them to wait for the others to come around on their own. it's also pretty useless since suche players would not be an asset to the team anyway (at least i would not play along with them any longer and even might sabotage, by using up all LS-drops, not reviving any fallen comrades and even leading enemies to or from them - what ever will hurt them most). so no, that wasn't at all what i was getting at... might be a good thing reading a thread afterall before posting something totally wrong to it, wouldn't you agree?

[fr4gb4ll]

13 hours ago, Ohforf3 said:

If they add a feature that forces the host to stay in the PT they will also need to change it so when the host steps into extract the timer starts even if they are the only one wanting to leave.  You want it to be a rule of 'host is done so party is over'?

a good point you got there...

basically, yes, i would want the "party is over" - host rule. and therefore yes, the host should start the timer even if alone there - maybe, a host specific timer with a little longer duration IF the host is the only one present there and the normale lengh as soon as there is one more. this might help with possible "confusion" any clients have when they see the host initiating the countdown... unexpected, so to say, and to made up their mind if they want to stay, risking the "dreaded" migration or will also leave with the host in a normal way. this would give the host the power to not being subject to any "force" upon them to stay with the rest (beside possible being cursed by them for leaving early) and still giving them a chance to prevent any migration problems and also not being punished by the possible "blacklisting" procedures in place.

[fr4gb4ll]

10 hours ago, Soki01 said:

because its such a bad idea based on the title alone

you would write a whole story in the title ofc, with everything in it, right?

sure, NOW i can also think of a better headline for it, but the one i choose isn't incorrect and not too bad either. also i can't change it anymore anyway. add to this that one should still read the thread before posting anything should be something even a grade school kid should know already - and he not only didn't do this, but even saying so - and like i told him just now, he did get the whole thing wrong - which isn't a suprise if one doesn't read  more than a headline... i wonder what kind of newpaper such people would read... likely only those with 90% pictures in it. 😆

10 hours ago, uxx0 said:

Dude, it's a PvE game. Punishing leavers in a PvE game would be #*!%ing ridiculous to say the least. Also if I wanted I could just block your IP address and force you to disconnect as host. That's even worse than just having a host migration. Your first mistake is playing public. Your second mistake is holding pugs to a higher standard. Join up with some clan mates or friends to avoid those problems altogether.

dude, that doesn't matter - not to me and i bet not to anyone who ever "suffered" the feeling of being f-ed over by some cowardly arѕehead who just for a personal satisfaction wasted someone else's time. if you have no problem with such behaviour, it's your own point of view, but it isn't reduculous at all.

sure, you can block one ip (if you actually know how to do it - most people don't know what a freaking ip actually is) and it's not worse, it only result in the "normal", still annoying connection loss issue - flooding someones ip though and preventing him from connecting to the control server to get anything earned updated in time, that, would be bad - lucky for us, the majority of the players don't have the knowledge, or means to do either.

as for your wonderfull idea of me being silly enough to a) using the public mode and b) holding it to any kind of standard... well, i have a big clan running any a lot of friends in the game i "could" resort to playing, BUT, i only do so for runs i know i unlikely would ever find a pug doing (very long endless mission) and not for your run-of-the-mill mission for standing etc. reason being the time i would waste even to organize this - this always end in someting like: "oh, sure we can do this, but i need to finish this run first", or "oh i'd like to, but i need to wait the this other dude i want to trade something"... there are so many reasons not use only clanies and/or friends in warframe, but just use the normal pug instead, only slightly self centered people use this advice nowadays... or so i thought - you aren't ofc one of those, right?!?

and, no i don't held pugs too high - which is why i DO use organized runs (even via the abyssmal recruit-chat) for something more specific of an mission, BUT i can rightly expect a "main-feature" like the fast-match-making of said pugs in a videogame being NOT a cheap wild-west-show of lacking basic standards (technical wise) and a playground for arѕeheads. and usually, i feel just fine the way DE handle the public game mode - except, for the few times do not. so sadly, i have to say, your objection (or rather advice) is neither new (to me at least) nor is it a solution at all to the stated problem. but thx anyway (really, i don't say this ironically).

[uxx0]

On 2018-11-21 at 11:17 PM, GnarlsDarkley said:

Not gonna read. I leave when I want or need to

Should've listened.

1 hour ago, fr4gb4ll said:

dude, that doesn't matter - not to me and i bet not to anyone who ever "suffered" the feeling of being f-ed over by some cowardly arѕehead who just for a personal satisfaction wasted someone else's time. if you have no problem with such behaviour, it's your own point of view, but it isn't reduculous at all.

#*!%ed over by what? Host migrations that worked? The situations you describe in your original post are uncommon enough that I wonder why you're getting so worked up about it when there are plenty of bugs more likely to pop up. Just fix the issues occuring from host migrations and everything's gonna be fine. You're not even considering potential reasons for the host getting disconnected but jump straight to the conclusion that they are "cowardly arseheads". I think you need to change your angle a bit here.

I can't say I had issues with host migrations #*!%ing me over completely, like losing items I'd care about. Especially on both Plains maps.

1 hour ago, fr4gb4ll said:

you aren't ofc one of those, right?!?

By your standards I am and I don't even feel bad about it.

[fr4gb4ll]

2 hours ago, uxx0 said:

#*!%ed over by what? Host migrations that worked? The situations you describe in your original post are uncommon enough that I wonder why you're getting so worked up about it when there are plenty of bugs more likely to pop up. Just fix the issues occuring from host migrations and everything's gonna be fine. You're not even considering potential reasons for the host getting disconnected but jump straight to the conclusion that they are "cowardly arseheads". I think you need to change your angle a bit here.

I can't say I had issues with host migrations #*!%ing me over completely, like losing items I'd care about. Especially on both Plains maps.

obviously not by working migrations... and no, it's not that rare this happens (intentioanlly or not). it's at least not the rule that happens, and i'm sure not worked up about anything (how do YOU even know what that is, eh?)

sure, there are enough bugs to fix and many of them more pressing than this, but if you think the problem of host migration screwing up one thing or the other, then you did not played warframe much. jumping to conclusion? no, but if "mysterical" the same things like the host vanishing at the most inconvinient time happens not once in a blue moon, but nearly as often as those cases where there isn't a problem with it, one can't ignore the feeling that this might intentional done - but ofc, you can belive in whatever you want too, even in santa claus...

no need for me to change my opinion toward people who intentionally want annoy me and waste my time - therefore no, i don't need to change my "angle" one bloody degree.

if you did not happen to lost rewards on the plains, i only can guess that you didn't play it the first few weeks after the release, for it was a common occasion then - though not really through intentional misuse of players, but thanks to bugs only. still even nowadays people lose standing, arcanes and gems/fishes etc. there when something goes wrong. if this don't happen to you, then lucky you - that or never even noticed it (or care about nothing, which also would not the rule for the rest of the players to feel).

[Estellrie]

100% will never happen. The closest thing that they can do is allow user to host themselves in public but I don't find it necessary. 

[Vennikyo]

This is just sad reality of Peer-to-peer connection model. Without dedicated servers (which would also not fix all the problems btw) others models are too expensive to switch on a whim. The only way is to use 'Set up dedicated server' in launcher options, always host and LFG all squads to avoid unforeseen consequences and issues with host mitigation.

[Altagraive]

В 22.11.2018 в 07:17, GnarlsDarkley сказал:

Not gonna read. I leave when I want or need to

This. Million times this.

I've done my business, I leave, end of story.

[Soki01]

On 2018-11-22 at 10:37 PM, fr4gb4ll said:

you would write a whole story in the title ofc, with everything in it, right?

no, i read it, and yes it matches the title, and its still a bad idea :3

Forcing a host tostay in a game could creat alot of unfacorable situations, the host migration system is a good standard, it just needs bugs fixed every now and then, and the bugs usually are not that common.

[Arcira]

I´m not a network expert or something so does anyone know why there is a host in an peer-to-peer systems in the first place? As far as I know all computer share data equally. Why is there a problem if a specific one is disconnecting?

Edited November 24, 2018 by Arcira

[(PSN)FriendSharkey]

Remember when the host left and the entire team got wiped and put on their backs because we weren't in an immortal state? Pepperidge Farm® does....

[Viedra_Lavinova]

All they have to do for a failed host migration is force you into your own instance so YOU can decide when you want to leave. Simple as that. Win-win for everyone

[fr4gb4ll]

2 hours ago, Arcira said:

I´m not a network expert or something so does anyone know why there is a host in an peer-to-peer systems in the first place? As far as I know all computer share data equally. Why is there a problem if a specific one is disconnecting?

it's pretty much an economically reason DE uses the p2p method and not dedicated server to host our missions. with dedicated servers, they would have to either operate a big number of server with the capacity to run multiple instances of the game (meaning no ordinary data-server, but gameserver with a lot of computing power) or they would have to rent them... and not only would they have to do so once, but in many places around the world to provide acceptable connection for all the players from all over the globe.

while this would be a far better way (technical-wise) to do, it would cost so much money that they would certainly let the user pay for it via monthly fees - like many other online games do. there would no free2play possible, at least not without a nasty microtransaction involved and the feared "pay2win" a logical consequens too. this would in turn decrease the playerbase significantly to a level, where it wouls soon turn out to be financial unwise to further develop the game or even run it much longer. this happend to many online games over the years and will likely happen to many games running these day in near future too.

therefore, the 2p2 option, as bad as it is in many ways, is one of the best options available for DE - still, even with the aga-old 2p2 system there are things that can be done (and ARE done actual by DE) to make the live of the players a bit more comfortable. one of those tings are the control srevers that not only are responsible for the matchmaking process, but also needed for the data correlation between the players (especially the host of a mission-instance) and the central server(s) where the accounts are stored. other things are surele done with them too that we only can speculate about since we aren't privy to them, but there have to be some safeguards active in cases of "unforeseen" disconnections because not always are all data lost when the ѕhit hits the fan, only one some rare occasions (freak accidents or due to people, who are running as the host, using specific vulnerabilities of the game).

2p2 networking has nearly no financial load on DE - only a few rented server around the globe maybe and a central one (near washington DC, i think) which the would need in any case and they can therefore give us the game we all like for "nearly" free as it is... the downsides of the 2p2 are sadly there too: the problem with wonky connections and trolling hosts are one downside, big party with many people on one map the other (remember, how unstabil the raid with 8ppl often were?) - most user-PCs and also their private networks aren't meant to run as hosts for more than a handfull of incomming connetions and/or computing the needed data fast enough beside running the game themself. and if you wonder about how then those relays and city work - easy: they are hosted by DE, same as nowadays our dojos too, btw. but also those are capped for 50 usere per instance (i think it were 50 at least).

the problem with disconnection is mostly when the host of a 2p2-network breaks up its connection - in the clasic 2p2 sense, this would mean all clients connected to this host would be send to whatever nirvana is stated in the exception-handling for this case (in warframe, this usually is our ship, but can also be the relay/city on in case of major network problems between the user and DE, even the login-screen). since DE has to use some kind(s) of safeguard for such occasions, we don't lose much or even nothing in most of the cases - but there were and are other cases when those safeguards fail and the user loses some or all rewards/standing/etc. after a host disconnect (or the user itself does so in a faulty manner). DE uses the host-migration technic to make one of the remaining clients the new host of an instance, but this technic is not perfect... even far from that... but it does help more often than not. there are also improvements to such technic that DE could use (and maybe already do, to a same amount and for specific things) to prevent any data loss in most cases - one would be where every client also saves at least its own needed data for the reward/etc. earned, but better yet, those of the rest of the team too. in a case of a migration failure, a script would then running through all those data files from all (still to the control server connected) user and would then reconstruct what everyone should get written to their account. sure, this would mean a bit more computing power on DEs side and also more datatransfere between all players as well as encryption/decryption processes on all user computers and the server too and therefore might be a problem for some potato computer in use of some players (meaning the game-spect would have to be increased too) and also would cost DE some bucks more for their servers - and if one judge from how stingy they are with the max. riven cap, one can see why this might not happen anytime soon.

[fr4gb4ll]

42 minutes ago, Viedra_Lavinova said:

All they have to do for a failed host migration is force you into your own instance so YOU can decide when you want to leave. Simple as that. Win-win for everyone

they do... usually. i'm often not sure why it fails sometimes - i always check then if the problem was at my side and even run a ping command to the control server to see if they have a problem... so far i never could pin-point the culprit (well, once i could and it was due to a blackout on my side ^^)

the "force" to your instance that they "introduced" officially after the PoE update, wasn't even new then - they done this often enough before too, though there were no option for leaving a running mission - except for abort it or the choice in some of the endless missions (which not really count as "running on ones own instance").

so yes, if they "could" fix the problems with host migrations failing for whatever reason, the problem would be solved too, and with no one able to complain about it either... but i doubt this will be happen any time soon if ever (the problems are present since the game started years ago - sometimes more, sometimes less). therefore an alternative method might be better - at least till they do fix it...

[Arcira]

21 minutes ago, fr4gb4ll said:

snip

Thanks for the reply but isn´t equal data trasfer between all clients the point of peer-to-peer? At least that´s what I thought by reading wikipedia. Every computer should already have access to all data at any given moment. Or do I get something wrong? Also as far as I know games like Path of Exile don´t use a p2p system and because of the amount of enemies, loot drops and the way the damage system works I could imagine there trafic is higher.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Arcira

[fr4gb4ll]

1 hour ago, Arcira said:

Thanks for the reply but isn´t equal data trasfer between all clients the point of peer-to-peer? At least that´s what I thought by reading wikipedia. Every computer should already have access to all data at any given moment. Or do I get something wrong? Also as far as I know games like Path of Exile don´t use a p2p system and because of the amount of enemies, loot drops and the way the damage system works I could imagine there trafic is higher.

yes, but it's not necessary when you run something like a game AFTER creating the p2p-network to correlate every data between the p2p-members.

what warframe uses is essential a p2p network only for the sake of creating an environment for the game to take place - after this, one member will be be the "designated" host of the match and the others will be the clients to this host. they likely doing it this way for the sake of simplicity in the net-code needed (and also, it's a more or less "proven" way to run a multiplayer game over the internet and well known how to implement). ofc, they can therefore just as well exchange all essential data on the higher level of the p2p network to make host-problems less a weakpoint, but only if they involve some instance outside the playing members of said p2p-network - the control server which is already used to collect all data after a mission end regulary would be the best bet for it, though it would mean that it has to be part of the network too - and likely from the beginning. which in turn means the server would have to run many parallel instances of an "invisible" partymember too - something like a mirror for the hosts data and a controlling fallback in case of said host being disconnected... i think for an online game this might be too much of an effort to work, but other real-time applications who uses p2p-technics run in this manner. for warframe, it would be easier to just make a secured data-exchange between all p2p-members and "reconstruct" all needed data if at least one member connects back to the control-server. ofc, if the server goes done, all data might still be lost since all those informations would only temporary be stored and valid too - else, the chance of manipulation might still be too high to risk this.

afaik, path of exile, doesn't use the p2p way because of another downside of its use: the host would have to be able to compute a good bit more of data beside the control of the data-communication of the connected clients - and depending on how the game is coded this might be even more than warframe need from the host-system. but for an example you might witnessed already from time to time, if you get into a mission and see that your connection to the host of it has high latency (the ping value in the on-screen info, if activated in the game options will tell you this) but is stabil nonetheless, you might only get a "lag" of some of your input-actions like changing to the operator mode and back and also some doors opening too late when you stand before them. most thing else will seem to be run just fine though... IF instead you get connected to a host with, e.g., a ping that oscillates between low values and very high ones, this shows you that there is no problem of latency due to range (dude on the other end of the globe) but either due to a very bad network setting (high load on the hosts network, bad uplink to the hosts ISP or other inacceptable problems anywhere between the hosts network and your own) or more likely due to the hosts computer being too weak to handle the extra computing necessary to be in time, and therefore not sending the needed udp-packets fast enough to you (if warframe would uses the tcp-protocol instead, it would be even worse then). since udp doesn't check for the correct order of data packets delivered, you can sometimes see very wired movements from enemies and players in the game - but it least this would not lead to an immediate connection loss due to a timeout error which would be the case if the game uses tcp instead.

[Arcira]

1 hour ago, fr4gb4ll said:

snip

I think I get the system. Essentially you have 3 clients who send there input data to a selected host which collects, calculates and tranfers them in one bundle to the warframe servers. Is that right?

But I don´t really get the benefit. You can do missions solo as well in which case your computer has to do all the calculations and transfers by itself anyway. Wouldn´t it be more beneficial if the player keeps his own "instanced world" and only information like position data are exchanged between clients? More or less a copy or projection of there actions.

 

[fr4gb4ll]

On 2018-11-24 at 10:31 PM, Arcira said:

I think I get the system. Essentially you have 3 clients who send there input data to a selected host which collects, calculates and tranfers them in one bundle to the warframe servers. Is that right?

But I don´t really get the benefit. You can do missions solo as well in which case your computer has to do all the calculations and transfers by itself anyway. Wouldn´t it be more beneficial if the player keeps his own "instanced world" and only information like position data are exchanged between clients? More or less a copy or projection of there actions.

 

the main benefit is only the economical one for the "service provider" ,in this case DE - else the p2p-method is a bad choice in about everything.

as for doing the mission in oneowns instance, that is about as we do it already - except for the main-calculation part (where is an enemy, where's he going, what does he do and who else is maybe attacking him...) - essentially, everything that all player can "interact" with in whatever kind, is calculated at the host.machine which then has to send the return values back to the clients, so that the whole-picture of the game world looks more or less the same for every player... you can see the problem with this when you get a long-range connection to a host (high-latency due to the time the data needs to travel between host and clients - we call this short: ping) and added to that, one machine who has to compute not only it's own player data but those of the clients too - and then send them back to each one...

to lessen this problem, game usually have some kind of... "lenient policy" in place, which might lead to some funny and/or annoying situations in-game at times - especially if like i described above, the lengh to and/or computing power of the host is rather on the bad side. then we can have things like enemies hitting or killing you even though they are "technicall" already taken care of by an other player or worst, like we had in old diablo 2, where loot was not shared but for whom was the fastest to collect it, the problem where the host is always in the advantage of getting loot-drops or experience for dealing with enemies... in warframe, they prevented such things by sharing of loot and also experience (though i still wonder why they made the complicated kind of system for experience-sharing they have...)

there are sure more methods one can use to circumvent or improve a p2p-network game and since no one want warframe to be a pay game with monthly fees or even a pay2win game with annoying micro-transaction of the like we see in many other games, the p2p-method with all it's flaws and shortcommings is the best avenue for it - at least, to my understanding, but you have to ask a gamedeveloper for the full picture there ^^)

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

Sorry. None of this makes any sense when you actually sit down and think about it. 

There's no way of knowing if my intent is going to spazz, or if an emergency will come up, or if I'll need to leave the mission. 

I'll feel bad, but there's no way to realistically force anyone to stay. And unfortunately, that's the long and short of it both. 

[Dabnician]

Man i gotta say there is this player named Dabnician always suggesting things like "letting players throw money at DE so they can rent dedicated servers from them and make even more money in the process of also solving the host migration issues.

but that dudes an idiot, cause he doesn't know what hes talking about, he thinks company actually take money from customers... Pft who in their right might actually PAYS for things right?........

 

 

the TLDR: Let me buy dedicated server time from the market, Build a room in my dojo that is powered by the server time and let me share it with my clan mates, done.
^{(the players that will never pay for a dedicate server can benefit from clans with players that will, and it fits in with lore)}

[Mikaeo]

I read the whole first post, and some of the rests, but I will not be addressing those. My issue with this is simple.

Your proposed fix is a band-aid fix for a bigger issue. I don't like those type of fixes.

You may have given up hope on DE fixing host migration issues, but suggesting a half-assed fix like this wont fix the bigger issue. The bigger issue being, if my host drops internet connection for some reason that they can't control, I still get screwed out of stuff from the mission. That is what I want fixed, I don't give a crap about griefers.

[fr4gb4ll]

and you can also say that when it rains and you go outside without an umbrella, that you will get wet. you could actually be lucky and evade every raindrop by pure chance... so, yes i can't know your intend even if look right at you (and not being an actual mind-reader), but since we all have brains, intuition and a good bit of experience (well, at least some of us might), we CAN do educated guesses that even are correct more often than. i pitty everyone who can't do this and wonder how they can live their lifes without being able to see simple behaviour pattern in their fellow humans.

last but not least (and i think i repeat myself yet again): there was never be a question that the host is "forced" to stay - just that the host is not allowed (without selfhurting by losing everything earned) to leave the team via the "leave" shortcut in the ESC-menu - something we only have since PoE for the sake of making life a bit more easy when someone wanted to stay outside. you seem to belive, that this was always an essential part of the game and not a simple QoL feature that sadly, due to the present flaws of the migration process, can and is misusable by the person who is the host. calling for a simple prevention and/or punishment (if you really inclined to call it that) system is nothing even remotely problematic for anyone except those who otherwise will keep annoying people by exploiting the flaws of the game. if there really IS any person who have a real emergancy in RL, this person would still alt-f4 out of the game (logically, one could just let the damn game running since nothing worse could happen anyway to one account then) and therefore still would lose all rewards earned at the mission.

so idk if you can't understand this very simple concept or if you are one of those who don't like it just because it would make trolling other players "costly" for oneself. and actually, i don't really care if you're one or the other - i can't really make myself any more clear then i done already (multiple time too). so take it leave it, but stop repeating yourself without refuting my point of views in a logicaql way. thanks.

[000l000]

Last time i have to leave as an host, one guy was so frustrated he simply insulted my wife who left too. This guy was so agressive and dumb he didn't even notice the quest was bugged (he wasn't even at the quest objective yet since he was awfully slow) and the fourth guy was literally afk, leeching at Fortuna.

So yeah players leave, and most do that for reasons too. If you think otherwise you're just paranoid and if you think that they're trolling you we can also think you're trolling them here. This game isn't North Korea, players are free, deal with it.

[fr4gb4ll]

23 minutes ago, Dabnician said:

Man i gotta say there is this player named Dabnician always suggesting things like "letting players throw money at DE so they can rent dedicated servers from them and make even more money in the process of also solving the host migration issues.

but that dudes an idiot, cause he doesn't know what hes talking about, he thinks company actually take money from customers... Pft who in their right might actually PAYS for things right?........

 

 

the TLDR: Let me buy dedicated server time from the market, Build a room in my dojo that is powered by the server time and let me share it with my clan mates, done.
^{(the players that will never pay for a dedicate server can benefit from clans with players that will, and it fits in with lore)}

actually, this dude (you) are right at this. with this being optional choice for players who wants to spend money on it to get either a QoL feature or to remove some annoying (at times) problems the game has, DE could have a possible line of revenue and make at least some player happy too.

i think the only reason they won't do this is that those rented dedicated server would have to be on many locations around the globe and them being in need of staff that coordinates all of them according to all differences in local law and such... not too much of a hassle and something many international acting businesses do everyday too, but maybe they don't like it to much - but then again,  they already uses server to control matchmaking and likely the management of updating player accounts between the hosts of missions and the central server where the account informations are stored.

well, maybe if they read it often enough, they will consider it after all ^^)

26 minutes ago, Mikaeo said:

I read the whole first post, and some of the rests, but I will not be addressing those. My issue with this is simple.

Your proposed fix is a band-aid fix for a bigger issue. I don't like those type of fixes.

You may have given up hope on DE fixing host migration issues, but suggesting a half-assed fix like this wont fix the bigger issue. The bigger issue being, if my host drops internet connection for some reason that they can't control, I still get screwed out of stuff from the mission. That is what I want fixed, I don't give a crap about griefers.

hate to break it to you (especially since i wrote so several times already), that this isn't about "technical" issues on either DEs nor your side but for (or rather against) intentional misuse of flaws in the game - and even if DE will ever be able to fix the migration problems, it's only a question about which update/hotfix will be able to "break" it again to some degree or the other. new "outbreaks" of problems thought fixed is not new for every veteran player of warframe nor is it new to anyone who develops software that is "take care of" by regulary updates and improvements - it just happens again and again. like you would handle unexpected problems in program code by issuing a set of exception-instruction, you can do so for whole procedures and even complete programs too - and what i suggest is therefore not an band-aid (which is actually a pretty silly term to use in everything but the medical sense... actually, even there it is) but an exception-handle or fallback option and furthermore a way to tread player who don't play by DEs rules accordingly  - and we all know DE likes their sense "moral" being uphold (no need for further explanation, i hope), so why not in this case too?

sure fixing the root of the problem would be the best way to do, but since i understand that it's virtual impossible to do with a seemingly unlimited amount of different factors involved (yes indeed, since every users own environment of computer hard- and software, their own network, their uplink to their ISP, the ISPs own hard- and software,..., etc., etc...), i think they only ever can do what you call a "band-aid" for the worst problems that causes the most part of the useres trouble... why then, not using a different route to solve such problems? ofc, in addition to really necessar hotfixes of problems with the migration that might still occure. it's doable, not to complicated, won't cost anything for DE (or at least only marginal much more) and like stated already often above, won't "hurt" the host more then waiting the usual time like DE intended from the start - it's even possible that the host can still stay outside by giving an alternative extraction zone for him (meaning it triggers the timer normally for the rest of the team so they can decide to leave on their own via either method (menu or exit-zone) and then putting the host in his own instance - he would not even have to wait in his exit zone, if triggered once and can procede to do whatever he wanted to do alone. scripting such thing isn't really complicated and judging what kind of scripting DE already uses in warframe, entirely doable already without any changes to the game code itself.

[Dabnician]

4 minutes ago, fr4gb4ll said:

i think the only reason they won't do this is that those rented dedicated server would have to be on many locations around the globe and them being in need of staff that coordinates all of them according to all differences in local law and such... not too much of a hassle and something many international acting businesses do everyday too, but maybe they don't like it to much - but then again,  they already uses server to control matchmaking and likely the management of updating player accounts between the hosts of missions and the central server where the account informations are stored.

well, maybe if they read it often enough, they will consider it after all ^^)

they should be able to do it with Amazon Web Services, Ive spent the better part of the last two years working in AWS for a government project that makes my eye time i have to pull up the tracker for all of the stuff i have to do. totally possible with them able to over provision services and pass almost all the cost onto the customer (us)

 

2 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Sorry. None of this makes any sense when you actually sit down and think about it. 

There's no way of knowing if my intent is going to spazz, or if an emergency will come up, or if I'll need to leave the mission. 

I'll feel bad, but there's no way to realistically force anyone to stay. And unfortunately, that's the long and short of it both. 

They could put a strike system in place and hosts are picked from players with the lowest number of strikes and also meets the connectivity requirements. have the strike expire after an hour. 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Dabnician