Mission failure needs to be rewarding, or people will leave the moment it looks shaky.

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

4 hours ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

How often do people actually fail missions? Actually fail, not "I am farming X and quitting the mission as a speed-farming strategy"?

Sure, there are the "don't do it in a public squad" mission types like sortie spy or rad. hazard mobile defence - but do people really fail missions aside from those? If not - why is any of this a problem?

I could understand the justification of making sure quitting the mission early removes any earned rewards (making people stay and fight if they want to keep the rewards) - but rewarding failure? Rewards should come from succeeding in a mission, not from failing it!

People don't fail missions. They quit the moment things look bad, turning possible failure into just another quit that's no different than if their internet cut out. DE is interested in increasing the number of missions people fail, and I'm offering a pretty simple, reasonable solution that does no harm as failing a mission still means you've finished the mission for better or worse. If DE just makes enemies one-shot the defense objective or something ridiculous like that, you'll have people responding in kind by using the most broken, safest setup possible to counteract that. It's an endless, harmful cycle.

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

4 minutes ago, (XBOX)TyeGoo said:

I'm fairly certain you have no idea what "meme" even means, but suit yourself honey. 😘 

It's funny you always lash out as soon as someone doesn't agree with you 😂 

It got removed because it was a low-effort meme that added nothing to the conversation. I'm sure you're projecting your lack of knowledge on what a meme is onto me, which is why I gave you the link. I can give you a few more if you're interested, but yes it was a meme and yes it was low-effort. Try contributing, even in a minor way.

Edit: it's feedback because I'm getting really tired of people *@##$ing out the moment the defense objective gets below 50%. It's a pretty simple motivation.

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

4 minutes ago, (XBOX)TyeGoo said:

Here we go again with your nonsense, and then you wonder why people don't like your topics. Oh well.

As long as it brings you fun, you do you i guess. 😘 

Take it up with DE, my friend. I only reported your comment, I'm not the one who removed it.

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

3 minutes ago, (XBOX)TyeGoo said:

Honey, i know how the forums work. That's not what I'm even getting at, I'm saying as soon as people don't agree with you you ridicule and insult them, flailing around with everything possible. 

This isn't the first time nor the last time. Multiple users already see through your schticks.

I'm ridiculing you because you're offering nothing at all. The first response disagreed with me and yet I explained my reasoning to them, and brought them over to seeing my point. You posted a worthless meme, complained about it being removed to someone who has only minor control over it, and are now accusing me of ridiculing you for disagreeing with me when you didn't post anything substantial enough to be something I can disagree with. It was just a meme.

Thanks for the thread engagement I guess.

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

2 minutes ago, (XBOX)TyeGoo said:

I didn't complain about any removal because I didn't even knew it was removed 😂 you're seeing things buddy..

Let that tell you how meaningless the post was. Unless you have substantive statements on the OP or any of my responses, you can leave now.

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

35 minutes ago, (XBOX)TyeGoo said:

Let that tell you that you need yet another account because people already know who you are. 

But in the end, if you're enjoying yourself, you do you! 

Let's not derail the topic further, I'm eagerly awaiting your next topic. "Shouldn't people who log in daily get free platinum, it would be great for new players!!!1!1!!1!"

Good day!

Ah yes, more low-effort memes. Another report, I guess. Have a nice day and thanks for the visibility if nothing else.

Edit: Oh nice, you added something to your post to make it contribute to the discussion, and it has actual arguments too! Unfortunately, your argument falls apart when you look at it with anything but the most superficial lens.

35 minutes ago, (XBOX)TyeGoo said:

It wouldn't make sense for a failure to be rewarding, that's backwards on the logic why failure in videogames even exists. People SHOULD fear failing, and do everything to NOT fail. Hence experienced players do not unless cheated by bugs.

Including outright abandoning missions and/or tasks the microsecond before they fail, to the chagrin of Digital Extremes themselves who have stated that they dislike this attitude? Your attitude towards failure is ignorant of the number of things today built upon it, and developed by humans who have failed at one task but by mistake - mistake, read - achieved something else or developed an idea to perfection using failure. If you assume failure's meant to be punished more than it already is by the human ego, you're ignorant of how it's the main catalyst for success.

I was waiting for someone to make this argument so I could simply put it like this: if failure is punishing, who will try to do something they can fail at? You prove the point I made in the OP about how this specific attitude only contributes to enshrinement of a meta and a lack of variety because after all, a meta is tried & tested, and found to be the best and easiest way of completing a task with minimal risk. You yourself said that people will avoid failure at all costs.

You know what would happen if people are punished for spam-quitting missions, including solo missions? DE loses the casual audience. It's pretty obvious you didn't read any of the responses following Grey's first reply, as you'd otherwise understand that your proposed solution is total garbage. Meanwhile, chain-failing/leaving missions never happens, so a penalty for repeat leaving won't do anything at all.

[(NSW)BalticBarbarian]

53 minutes ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

People don't fail missions. They quit the moment things look bad, turning possible failure into just another quit that's no different than if their internet cut out.

I'll restate my question: How often does a mission even come close to failure? And how? 99.9% of warframe's content is so ridiculously easy that any player past the very beginner levels can finish most of the missions. Unless, of course, you are talking about endurance runs - but that's a whole different beast and nothing in this discussion is really applicable to those.

For those missions that actually have a chance of failure (while some of the players are still awake), people just gather in premade squads that will try to coordinate their efforts - again making failure unlikely.

So what missions are you talking about? Can you give examples?

[(PSN)jaggerwanderer]

Which mission has the highest failure rate? Archwing intercept? Exterminate? Capture? Why bother have a system to reward failure when it can be done to fix said missions to stop failure altogether?

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

1 minute ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

I'll restate my question: How often does a mission even come close to failure? And how? 99.9% of warframe's content is so ridiculously easy that any player past the very beginner levels can finish most of the missions. Unless, of course, you are talking about endurance runs - but that's a whole different beast and nothing in this discussion is really applicable to those.

For those missions that actually have a chance of failure (while some of the players are still awake), people just gather in premade squads that will try to coordinate their efforts - again making failure unlikely.

So what missions are you talking about? Can you give examples?

Any whatsoever, from those random radiation sorties to the random Lua spy missions to SP missions of varying types. I'm not addressing singular missions, I'm suggesting that DE make failure rewarding (but less so than success) so people are less worried about it when/if it happens. That's it.

[(NSW)BalticBarbarian]

Just now, (PSN)jaggerwanderer said:

Which mission has the highest failure rate? Archwing intercept? Exterminate? Capture? Why bother have a system to reward failure when it can be done to fix said missions to stop failure altogether?

DE actually addressed that a while ago in a devstream. It's sortie spy - because people are too used to cheesing spy missions with ciphers. Not sure this can be fixed - players just need to learn how to do spy missions.

[(NSW)BalticBarbarian]

2 minutes ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

Any whatsoever, from those random radiation sorties to the random Lua spy missions to SP missions of varying types.

How do you "come close" to failing one of these missions!

You fail a spy mission by failing a vault - which happens instantly (a player either completes a vault in time or they don't). You fail a radiation sortie mission by shooting an objective while procced - which also happens instantly (assuming your weapons are modded). "SP missions of various types" - again, be specific!

For your scenario (players leaving because a mission is about to fail, you need a mission that you can "fail gradually". I just can't think of many missions like that!

[(PSN)haphazardlynamed]

1 hour ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

This is where you (and a number of people) are wrong, maybe because you've never paid much attention to your loot count before and after aborting a mission. You keep the stuff you pick up during the mission, even if the UI glitches out (as it does on mission success sometimes too) and shows that you've gained nothing. If you fail the mission, however, that's when all of your loot is erased. If you don't believe me, you can test it out yourself. I'm not sure a 3 minute clip of me doing it for you will be of use to you, and I want to keep myself at 0 mission failures for purpose of shoving in peoples' faces if they think I don't like a challenge.

 

The only loot I even care about is the stuff that is only awarded at the very end of mission, not the stuff picked up during. the "unidentified item" stuff that is unrevealed until mission success.

The potential for Abort exploiting has already been addressed for these things.

 

If people are aborting just to keep some paltry ferrite or nano spores; well that sounds like a low-MR problem to me, these things become irrelevant when you play enough.

[(PSN)haphazardlynamed]

3 minutes ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

 

You fail a spy mission by failing a vault - which happens instantly (a player either completes a vault in time or they don't).

No idea who's side I'm supporting with this

but side note:

I've had multiple times in public spy, where when another player has a ticking countdown on a vault, and I drop a Liset Air Support to freeze all timers

at which point they either now succeed, or I manage to reach their vault and solve it for them

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

29 minutes ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

How do you "come close" to failing one of these missions!

You fail a spy mission by failing a vault - which happens instantly (a player either completes a vault in time or they don't). You fail a radiation sortie mission by shooting an objective while procced - which also happens instantly (assuming your weapons are modded). "SP missions of various types" - again, be specific!

For your scenario (players leaving because a mission is about to fail, you need a mission that you can "fail gradually". I just can't think of many missions like that!

I think you may have misunderstood my argument. I'm arguing that, by increasing the rewards for people brave enough to try until they fail, DE would increase the number of people who fail missions because there would no longer be an incentive to leave (with that incentive being keeping part of their loot) instead of failing the mission. A lot of people will be leaving the moment the vault timer hits 10s in a sortie. The same goes for objective health or capture target distance. This goes for all missions, not just difficult ones, and it would also help with a lot of host migration frustration as people would have an encouragement to stick it through to the end regardless of outcome.

[Yamazuki]

1 hour ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

DE actually addressed that a while ago in a devstream. It's sortie spy - because people are too used to cheesing spy missions with ciphers. Not sure this can be fixed - players just need to learn how to do spy missions.

Helminth ability lets you skip the hacking portion; and making you waste time on it in the first place doesn't make spy "harder". Warframe abilities already let you bypass the mechanical aspect of the vaults.

As for op's issue, I would be indifferent. A lot of pve games already don't strip earned rewards away upon failing unless they follow a stamina system, but even then, they don't consume your stamina [generally] until you actually succeed in the first place. Keeping what you get, even a portion of it, would be making the game more in line with most pve games. 

It's also not as if "failing almost never happens" is much of an argument against what op is suggesting. The game doesn't become any easier to progress in the grand scheme of things either, it's mainly just a bunch of resources people would be keeping. It's really only endless missions with rotational rewards where this would be most relevant for non-resource oriented rewards [or stuff like SP Acolytes], but people possibly pushing beyond what they might handle if they weren't afraid of losing everything isn't really a bad thing to begin with... Even other games with "endless" modes don't all result in your rewards going poof for trying to go further than you know you can handle.

[(NSW)BalticBarbarian]

23 minutes ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

there would no longer be an incentive to leave (with that incentive being keeping part of their loot) instead of failing the mission

There is no incentive to "leave instead of failing a mission" unless there is a time when you can make that decision - the time when you are "about to fail a mission"! And I don't really see such a moment ocurring very often! In the few situations where I can understand players (past the very novice level) failing missions, the failure is instant: the mission goes from "everything is ok" (no reason to leave) to "mission failed" (too late to leave) in literally a second or two. none of your arguments are applicable in such situations.

So give us a concrete example of a situation where your arguments are applicable!

[Birdframe_Prime]

3 hours ago, Voltage said:

If DE doesn't like this, then they should go back to some of this content and make it inefficient to quit and restart.

Well, to be fair, they do all they can. The things you've listed are all functions that weren't accounted for on the original scheme, and really should be addressed.

The issue is what it's always been; priority. As stated on the DevStream today (as of typing) the priority is the big content drop, nothing else. Heck, even Yareli is only getting tiny updates despite the state of her...

When time comes to look at progression again, DE will do another round of preventing this tactic. Anything from pushing Riven unlock confirmations to the end of the mission to ensuring that Aborting de-confirms the spawn of a Lich.

I can fully see them enacting actual punishing consequences for Aborting in those cases, where your work to complete whatever challenge, or your RNG to get the right weapon, is completely wasted if you Abort.

That is far more likely, based on all the changes they've made to the game so far to prevent Aborting, than them ever making mission Failure more rewarding than it already is. And when I say 'than it already is' I mean that DE let you keep any Affinity gain you got in mission, so that at least newer players trying to grind levels for their gear can actually benefit from a Fail state. In that respect, they've taken a little pity on them... but not a lot.

Heck, there are only two modes in the game that have such an essential part of them being the Fail state, which is Sanctuary and Arbitrations. Arbitrations lets you keep the rotation rewards if you fail specifically because of the rules around player death in that mode. And Sanctuary is specifically designed so that the 'fail' is actually a 'mission complete' state, with you capable of 'winning' even if you don't pass through the first Conduit.

It all comes down to the reasoning they gave when they made those changes previously; Aborting mission should be the same as Failing it, and any Fail state in Warframe should be punishing.

So...

Yeah, the things you've mentioned, and other ones you haven't, are in the game currently. I can say (almost for certain) that if DE had the time and resources to spend, they wouldn't be. Just like exploiting the Taxi system to bypass functional content locks, that's another one that's going to go.

[(NSW)BalticBarbarian]

4 minutes ago, Yamazuki said:

Helminth ability lets you skip the hacking portion; and making you waste time on it in the first place doesn't make spy "harder". Warframe abilities already let you bypass the mechanical aspect of the vaults.

That devsream was a while ago, might have even been before helminth. And players who don't know how to do spy vaults often don't come properly prepared for the either.

6 minutes ago, Yamazuki said:

It's also not as if "failing almost never happens" is much of an argument against what op is suggesting.

The burden of proof is on the other side though - OP is the one advocating for a change. So it's up to the OP to show that the change would be a worthwhile improvement to the game. If the situation at issue almost never happens - then the value of any potential "improvement" (even if this was an improvement) greatly diminishes.

 

12 minutes ago, Yamazuki said:

but people possibly pushing beyond what they might handle if they weren't afraid of losing everything isn't really a bad thing to begin with...

people pushing for endurance runs typically don't care about the mission rewards anyway! The person pushing into the 4th hour of a SP survival isn't there for the Nano Spores!

And if a player is there for a certain reward (e.g. like when I was recently farming Ambassador), they will leave as soon as they get it - not out of fear of a mission failure but out of fear of network issues and game crashes.

[Uhkretor]

7 hours ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

the rules for aborting can work a little differently.

I can confirm that aborting in Open Area maps (Plains, Orb Vallis, Cambion) keeps the rewards you personally collected... And I can also confirm that doing the same in any other mission (Not Railjack missions), without extracting normally, will forfeit any drop you've gained...

 

The only thing it keeps is the affinity gained through killing... Even the bonus affinity is forfeit.

 

I don't know, I feel like this thread is another one where I'm going to laugh for days at how...

*giggles*

... Sorry, but I have a hard time seeing threads from this specific author as something serious... I already added his face to my ignore list so I can't even see his messages, but I can see from other people's quotes of his posts that this is another "I want Steel Path shops but I haven't unlocked it. Give me access please because I can't be bothered to unlock it" kind of thread...

... And his attitude towards most participants that aren't agreeing with him...? Wow... And I already know that he's going to lash out at me for beating the nail with a interplanetary bomb.

[Yamazuki]

5 minutes ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

That devsream was a while ago, might have even been before helminth. And players who don't know how to do spy vaults often don't come properly prepared for the either.

I wasn't saying they're related, more so pointing out you can bypass them in Sortie again. There was also the Parazon mod and being able to trigger it every time.

6 minutes ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

The burden of proof is on the other side though - OP is the one advocating for a change. So it's up to the OP to show that the change would be a worthwhile improvement to the game. If the situation at issue almost never happens - then the value of any potential "improvement" (even if this was an improvement) greatly diminishes.

The "nonexistent failure" is only from the perspective of people who have experience or loadouts to trivialize literally everything DE puts out. To people who only care about their own personal experience, there's nothing the op can do to "prove" anything. Even if they had a valid argument, it would still be dismissed based on "the game is too easy" or the obligatory "git gud".

8 minutes ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

people pushing for endurance runs typically don't care about the mission rewards anyway! The person pushing into the 4th hour of a SP survival isn't there for the Nano Spores!

If someone is able to sit in a survival for hours on end, the likelihood of failing it is... zero. To anyone with experience endless mission is mind numbingly easy, and a variety of Warframes can basically do the survival run for you. At that point, the "difficulty" is dealing with how boring it is to be doing the exact same thing for that long. I personally only tolerated it with solo and being able to pause the game. Otherwise, in pugs, I rarely exceed 3 hours.

Given that, this thread is obviously not referring to such people. There are those who think a non-sp 30 minute survival at higher level areas or even arbitration is difficult enough. People do legitimately die outside of SP and I've had some missions come close to failing due to alt tabbing. Sometimes when I respond on forums, I'm in the middle of a mission as an example, since I don't always want to just kill everything and have the group just watching me play. It's also why I frequently use support builds and only kill everything to avoid failing.

[(PSN)jaggerwanderer]

So make it so missions don't have any fail conditions. Problem solved. Excavate doesn't have any fail conditions. you can take 1 hour to get one mining done. Though people will just abandon the mission before that happens all because it could of been done in 5 minutes. Tenno abort missions because of time investment needed. Not because the mission is going to fail.

[(NSW)BalticBarbarian]

8 minutes ago, Yamazuki said:

The "nonexistent failure" is only from the perspective of people who have experience or loadouts to trivialize literally everything DE puts out. To people who only care about their own personal experience, there's nothing the op can do to "prove" anything. Even if they had a valid argument, it would still be dismissed based on "the game is too easy" or the obligatory "git gud".

The "nonexistent failure" argument comes not from the "I'm so powerful" point of view. You are forgetting that in many mission types you literally can't fail except by running out of revives (which is really hard if squadmates revive each other)!

How do you fail an exterminate mission in a squad? If you are downed - squadmates will revive you. But other than that - there is no fail trigger! The only way is for the whole squad to sit in a corner for 15 mins, avoiding all enemies!

How do you fail a squad sabotage (except Earth and Jupiter - where there is a defence segment)?

I guess you could fail a capture if the whole squad decides not to bother chasing the target - but as long as the whole squad is trying to succeed, capture is also very hard to fail.

The "nonexistent failure" argument does not come from a "git gud" mindset - it comes from the fact that it actually isn't easy to fail most missions in this game!

[Leyvonne]

4 hours ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

I'm not sure a 3 minute clip of me doing it for you will be of use to you, and I want to keep myself at 0 mission failures for purpose of shoving in peoples' faces if they think I don't like a challenge.

I'd like to see that video because I don't remember a scenario where I got any loot out of aborting a mission and I have to do that on occasion due to health issues. Afaik aborting mission = voluntary mission failure.

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

2 hours ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

There is no incentive to "leave instead of failing a mission" unless there is a time when you can make that decision - the time when you are "about to fail a mission"! And I don't really see such a moment ocurring very often! In the few situations where I can understand players (past the very novice level) failing missions, the failure is instant: the mission goes from "everything is ok" (no reason to leave) to "mission failed" (too late to leave) in literally a second or two. none of your arguments are applicable in such situations.

So give us a concrete example of a situation where your arguments are applicable!

Such situations are rarer than the opposite, though: you can see the defense objective's health, you can see the time left on vaults, you can see where the capture target is, and the missions where it isn't applicable (I'm NOT going to mention Disruption because I don't know if you can fail that) are missions like Excavation or SO, where failing the mission is borderline impossible so long as you don't go AFK. The only exceptions, where mission failure is immediate, are missions with radiation hazards... and needless to say, no-one does them because of how punishing it is to insta-fail because you had a Banshee.

 

2 hours ago, Uhkretor said:

I can confirm that aborting in Open Area maps (Plains, Orb Vallis, Cambion) keeps the rewards you personally collected... And I can also confirm that doing the same in any other mission (Not Railjack missions), without extracting normally, will forfeit any drop you've gained...

 

The only thing it keeps is the affinity gained through killing... Even the bonus affinity is forfeit.

 

I don't know, I feel like this thread is another one where I'm going to laugh for days at how...

*giggles*

... Sorry, but I have a hard time seeing threads from this specific author as something serious... I already added his face to my ignore list so I can't even see his messages, but I can see from other people's quotes of his posts that this is another "I want Steel Path shops but I haven't unlocked it. Give me access please because I can't be bothered to unlock it" kind of thread...

... And his attitude towards most participants that aren't agreeing with him...? Wow... And I already know that he's going to lash out at me for beating the nail with a interplanetary bomb.

Nice troll-post but maybe don't admit to trolling so people take you seriously. Brush up on the wiki a bit too so you can post something plausible enough that it'll get someone to respond to you in good faith instead of make fun of you for how petty you are.

 

2 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Well, to be fair, they do all they can. The things you've listed are all functions that weren't accounted for on the original scheme, and really should be addressed.

The issue is what it's always been; priority. As stated on the DevStream today (as of typing) the priority is the big content drop, nothing else. Heck, even Yareli is only getting tiny updates despite the state of her...

When time comes to look at progression again, DE will do another round of preventing this tactic. Anything from pushing Riven unlock confirmations to the end of the mission to ensuring that Aborting de-confirms the spawn of a Lich.

I can fully see them enacting actual punishing consequences for Aborting in those cases, where your work to complete whatever challenge, or your RNG to get the right weapon, is completely wasted if you Abort.

That is far more likely, based on all the changes they've made to the game so far to prevent Aborting, than them ever making mission Failure more rewarding than it already is. And when I say 'than it already is' I mean that DE let you keep any Affinity gain you got in mission, so that at least newer players trying to grind levels for their gear can actually benefit from a Fail state. In that respect, they've taken a little pity on them... but not a lot.

Heck, there are only two modes in the game that have such an essential part of them being the Fail state, which is Sanctuary and Arbitrations. Arbitrations lets you keep the rotation rewards if you fail specifically because of the rules around player death in that mode. And Sanctuary is specifically designed so that the 'fail' is actually a 'mission complete' state, with you capable of 'winning' even if you don't pass through the first Conduit.

It all comes down to the reasoning they gave when they made those changes previously; Aborting mission should be the same as Failing it, and any Fail state in Warframe should be punishing.

So...

Yeah, the things you've mentioned, and other ones you haven't, are in the game currently. I can say (almost for certain) that if DE had the time and resources to spend, they wouldn't be. Just like exploiting the Taxi system to bypass functional content locks, that's another one that's going to go.

You're either not understanding or outright ignoring the point I'm trying to make: if you abort a mission, even if that mission is 100% guaranteed to be a failure, you're rewarded more for it than if you stayed to mission completion. People leaving for quick Lich spawns, or Riven unlocks not being tied to mission completion, are unrelated but I somehow agree with you and think they've got to go.

I'm not talking about external mechanics that exist outside of the individual mission (Liches, riven mods, etc.) I'm talking about mission completion vs. failure vs. abandonment, with abandoning a mission granting you more rewards than staying through a failure and how this encourages a pretty toxic attitude towards failing missions where most people will give up and leave if the defense objective takes too much damage or things don't go to plan. The reason they'd do this is, of course, that it's more rewarding to leave than stay in that circumstance. Change that, and suddenly you have more mission failures and fewer Alt+F4 players. That's my point. Tying riven unlocks to completion is a fine idea, but I cannot stress enough, it is completely unrelated to what I'm talking about here.

Random note about your problem with me enjoying SP, DE's the one who decides whether it's a bug or not. You're a player, not the designer. If they decide that it's an unintended bug, then that's how it is and I'm not going to complain. You seem to be the one that has a problem with their choice to leave it as-is.

Another random note, the challenge of any individual mission is irrelevant. People fail missions. It happens. I have yet to (lucky me) but it happens. How often it happens is only relevant insofar as DE wants to make mission failure more common, and, again, I'm suggesting a way they may do so without causing problems: by making mission failure more rewarding than aborting as soon as things look sketchy, DE turns the people who may abort a mission into people who stick with it. Simple.

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

1 hour ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

The "nonexistent failure" argument comes not from the "I'm so powerful" point of view. You are forgetting that in many mission types you literally can't fail except by running out of revives (which is really hard if squadmates revive each other)!

How do you fail an exterminate mission in a squad? If you are downed - squadmates will revive you. But other than that - there is no fail trigger! The only way is for the whole squad to sit in a corner for 15 mins, avoiding all enemies!

How do you fail a squad sabotage (except Earth and Jupiter - where there is a defence segment)?

I guess you could fail a capture if the whole squad decides not to bother chasing the target - but as long as the whole squad is trying to succeed, capture is also very hard to fail.

The "nonexistent failure" argument does not come from a "git gud" mindset - it comes from the fact that it actually isn't easy to fail most missions in this game!

How easy/hard it is to fail a mission has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the difference between quitting a mission pre-fail and sticking it through to failure, the latter of which no-one is ever going to do so long as leaving before-hand is an option that has equal or greater reward. Which it does.