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

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

1 hour ago, Leyvonne said:

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.

I just tested it out and the rewards for aborting the mission are: affinity, picked up credits and any level-ups acquired during the mission. So yes you do lose pick-ups and most of the stuff acquired during the run, but since mission failure's literally the exact same thing but worse there's no reason someone would allow themselves to fail a mission anyway. So long as it's worse to fail a mission than leave before you do, that's all people will do.

[(NSW)BalticBarbarian]

20 minutes ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

How easy/hard it is to fail a mission has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I think I finally understand where the misunderstanding comes from: I'm not talking about mission difficulty, 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 more rewarding. Which it is. I'm not going to fail my first mission just to prove myself correct, but you'll be able to find a plethora of forum posts confirming that mission failure wipes rewards while mission abortion lets you keep all but mission completion rewards.
 

What you seem to fail to understand is that just the fact that you want a change to be implemented does not make that change worthwhile! Even assuming the change to be positive (and the one you're proposing is questionable at best), it needs to fix a real problem that real players actually experience! Otherwise the change is not worth the dev time it would take.

So far, the problem you've been describing (players quitting mission because it is about to be failed) is purely theoretical! Or it affects such a tiny proportion of players for such a tiny interval of their playthrough that it might as well be purely theoretical.

If you can provide concrete examples of this happening in-game and affecting players (not just "you can probably fail this mission type if you go AFK for long enough") - please do. Otherwise your suggestion is not worth very much.

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

30 minutes ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

What you seem to fail to understand is that just the fact that you want a change to be implemented does not make that change worthwhile! Even assuming the change to be positive (and the one you're proposing is questionable at best), it needs to fix a real problem that real players actually experience! Otherwise the change is not worth the dev time it would take.

So far, the problem you've been describing (players quitting mission because it is about to be failed) is purely theoretical! Or it affects such a tiny proportion of players for such a tiny interval of their playthrough that it might as well be purely theoretical.

If you can provide concrete examples of this happening in-game and affecting players (not just "you can probably fail this mission type if you go AFK for long enough") - please do. Otherwise your suggestion is not worth very much.

Fair concern. I'll try chronologically. The first time you'll experience this, most likely, is in Ludi - a node on Ceres no-one ever bothers with. If you're doing this the first time, a solo hijack mission with a R17-25 Excalibur won't be the easiest and there are very few people who do this specific node because it's not worth doing. If you find someone who does it, chances are they'll be leaving the mission as soon as the rover drops below 25% health because, supposedly, mission failure is inevitable and you lose all of your rewards either way. It will drop below 25% if you're new, no exception, so you'll do it solo most of the time.

Ludi's just a very early example of this in action. Public spy missions have a lot of this. Steel Path missions, even more. Defense objectives on SP, yet more. Hydron on SP for long periods is an exceptional example too. No-one's encouraged to stay and see the match through to the end because more rewarding to leave the match and move on than it is to accept the failure and wait for the summary screen. The reason's pretty simple: it's just more rewarding to leave.

You do make a pretty good point though, especially since I was listening in on DE's stream: it's not worthwhile to fix old content unless it's something absurdly broken, rather they want to focus purely on new content instead. This doesn't make feedback of this kind pointless, however, because you can say that for anything: "Oh well, max integer damage may be bad but they have new content they need to focus on." The line on how reasonable that response is needs to be drawn carefully, and the tendency for certain people to discount criticism for that reason and follow it up by complaints about 'the current game state' is a little ehh.

[(NSW)Greybones]

2 hours 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!

🤔 Good points, now you’ve gotten me thinking of how they may introduce more potential failpoints to said missions (that may have the option to overpower, of course). I’ve failed Exterminates because I died all four times in solo due to bad decision-making mid-fight, but in a squad (usually I don’t build for the fight if I’m playing with randoms, since I expect that they aren’t interested in fighting and are mainly interested in getting through fast) it does seem kind of impossible, even if all four players don’t bring overtuned equipment.

Thanks for the food for thought 👍 (not sure what happens if enemies destroy all of the canisters when doing a Cold sabotage; I’ve been too scared to go that route very often 😋)

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

13 minutes ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

🤔 Good points, now you’ve gotten me thinking of how they may introduce more potential failpoints to said missions (that may have the option to overpower, of course). I’ve failed Exterminates because I died all four times in solo due to bad decision-making mid-fight, but in a squad (usually I don’t build for the fight if I’m playing with randoms, since I expect that they aren’t interested in fighting and are mainly interested in getting through fast) it does seem kind of impossible, even if all four players don’t bring overtuned equipment.

Thanks for the food for thought 👍 (not sure what happens if enemies destroy all of the canisters when doing a Cold sabotage; I’ve been too scared to go that route very often 😋)

I'd quite welcome new, unexpected failstates if they were less punishing than they are now. A challenge would be quite fun.

[(NSW)Greybones]

3 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.

Now I’m doubly curious to test this for myself. OP seems pretty adamant about it, which makes me wonder if there’s something there (at the least I can disprove it to myself proper, and not have to bother wondering anymore). I did know about the open world aborting still granting rewards, which makes me think I’d probably appreciate the mid-abort-giving-rewards for what I assume is defense (since I’ve had to duck out real fast from open world stuff due to real life). Assuming it’s an actual thing, of course.

And since I could potentially appreciate the hypothetical abort rewards because I’m aborting for legitimate reasons, it gives me pause for thought; even though personally I would rather see abort rewards match failure rewards, I can see the argument for failure at least closer to matching abort. While it’s not what I’d necessarily want as a solution to players hypothetically valuing abort over failure, it may end up with more players treading the line between success and failure just in general if failure wasn’t so harsh.

I saw the “Access SP via taxi” (I think it was?). Didn’t bother reading it, so I’m a little ignorant of what the thread was like. If this thread is anything to go by, I’ve definitely seen more… colourful arguments around these forums 😛

[(XBOX)Big Roy 324]

I see people don't really get it.  But part of the reason that failing is so hard is because of how high the cost of failing is. 

On Xbox there are a fair number of quitters.  If you are running a mission in the non-meta.  Have a slight moment of struggle.  Or anything at all happens they don't like.

"**** has left squad"

Because everything is a grind and rewards aren't truly appropriate based on time invested. People will always quit. 

But some sort of incentive that benefits newer players such as resources collected and affinity gained would go a long way to players testing their power out more. Quitters of course will still be quitters. 

[(XBOX)Big Roy 324]

2 minutes ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

Now I’m doubly curious to test this for myself. OP seems pretty adamant about it, which makes me wonder if there’s something there (at the least I can disprove it to myself proper, and not have to bother wondering anymore). I did know about the open world abortion still granting rewards, which makes me think I’d probably appreciate the mid-abort-giving-rewards for what I assume is defense (since I’ve had to duck out real fast from open world stuff due to real life). Assuming it’s an actual thing, of course.

And since I could potentially appreciate the hypothetical abort rewards because I’m aborting for legitimate reasons, it gives me pause for thought; even though personally I would rather see abort rewards match failure rewards, I can see the argument for failure at least closer to matching abort. While it’s not what I’d necessarily want as a solution to players hypothetically valuing abort over failure, it may end up with more players treading the line between success and failure just in general if failure wasn’t so harsh.

I saw the “Access SP via taxi” (I think it was?). Didn’t bother reading it, so I’m a little ignorant of what the thread was like. If this thread is anything to go by, I’ve definitely seen more… colourful arguments around these forums 😛

If the game "drops" you.  Some of the things gained are returned if you can't get back in mission on time. So I can see just hitting X on the game if things get hairy and loading back in to see if you get an inbox message. 

[(PSN)jaggerwanderer]

If Abort is the issue, remove that option from the players. Now everyone is FORCED to stay in the mission with other players they may not like or enjoy playing with.

[(NSW)Greybones]

1 minute ago, (XBOX)Big Roy 324 said:

If the game "drops" you.  Some of the things gained are returned if you can't get back in mission on time. So I can see just hitting X on the game if things get hairy and loading back in to see if you get an inbox message. 

That was one of the reasons I appreciated the mid-mission abort rewards; I got kicked out once due to technical problems, and found at least not all of my progress was lost.

I can see how it might get abused, yeah. Not a thing I’d do, personally, but yeah

[Uhkretor]

2 minutes ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

Now I’m doubly curious to test this for myself. OP seems pretty adamant about it, which makes me wonder if there’s something there (at the least I can disprove it to myself proper, and not have to bother wondering anymore). I did know about the open world abortion still granting rewards, which makes me think I’d probably appreciate the mid-abort-giving-rewards for what I assume is defense (since I’ve had to duck out real fast from open world stuff due to real life). Assuming it’s an actual thing, of course.

You should test it out, if you can, as it may shed some more light on the matter.

I remember that "failing" a mission (Proper failing and aborting are classified as "failure" apparently, and for good reason... ) in Open Areas became like that because players were, apparently, feeling that the time spent until the failure was a complete waste of time if they collected lots of stuff for hours (fished for hours, lets call it as it is) if they attempted a bounty and failed for some reason (usually, because they were steamrolled out of revives)...

Spoiler

... We all know the real reason was that they didn't want to stay "imprisoned" to a squad for a full bounty when they got what they wanted in earlier stages...

... DE changed it to give a bit of a... lets call it "tolerance"... when that happens.

What I don't know is if they actually separated the act of "aborting" from "proper failure" in order to deny any rewards from aborting while allowing rewards up to the point of "proper failure" under the same "failure" classification...

 

If they did manage to do that, I wouldn't mind to actually see this extended to, for example, railjack missions but adjusted to ground and space sections... As in, if someone would fail the ground section, the Railjack rewards from the space section would still be received... (I'm assuming this isn't being done, I might being wrong there)

1 minute ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

saw the “Access SP via taxi” (I think it was?). Didn’t bother reading it, so I’m a little ignorant of what the thread was like. If this thread is anything to go by, I’ve definitely seen more… colourful arguments around these forums

... You should really read that one. You'll giggle for a few minutes haha

[(XBOX)Big Roy 324]

4 minutes ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

That was one of the reasons I appreciated the mid-mission abort rewards; I got kicked out once due to technical problems, and found at least not all of my progress was lost.

I can see how it might get abused, yeah. Not a thing I’d do, personally, but yeah

Yeah it was the same for me.  I appreciated the rewards when I was dropped.  But I started noticing more when people left mission.

People who don't like the loadouts of fellow players usually go right away.  But I have seen folks bounce when the objective starts to take damage. The bonus condition on a bounty wasn't met. One guy even jumped out while I was fighting a lich because the stalker showed up and I decided to try and clear him out first. 

[(NSW)BalticBarbarian]

3 minutes ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

Fair concern. I'll try chronologically. The first time you'll experience this, most likely, is in Ludi - a node on Ceres no-one ever bothers with. Now, let's not get into how a new player may know, but needless to say a solo hijack mission with a R17-25 Excalibur won't be the easiest and there're very few people who do this specific node because it's not worth doing. If you find someone who does it, chances are they'll be leaving the mission as soon as the rover drops below 25% health because, supposedly, mission failure is inevitable and you lose all of your rewards either way.

Allow me to point out a few things about your example:

• Ceres is the 6th planet you get to. So how did you get there before maxing out your first frame (with a "R17-25 Excal")? Either you got taxi-ed (in which case the taxi driver can deal with the mission too) or this is your alt account (in which case you should know how to solo that mission yourself). If you are a new player and you truly got to the node yourself - chances are you've already got some basic weapons and mods - as well as some idea about how to apply them
• Since this is indeed a node "no-one ever bothers with", how likely are you to find a public squad for it? Unless you asked an experienced player to carry you - in which case the tram's health does not get that low

So for your scenario to be real, you need two complete novices without even the basic gear to somehow independently decide to do a node in the middle of the starchart (past where the gear would comfortably carry them) at the same time. That does not seem very likely. Furthermore, the only time this might affect a player is when they are at the very beginning of their playthrough, before they would know the "trick" to quit the mission before failure to get slightly more loot.

All of this makes your scenario less than likely! Are you sure that's something people actually experience and not just a theoretical edge case you contorted?

27 minutes ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

Public spy missions have a lot of this. Steel Path missions, even more. Defense objectives on SP, yet more.

In every public spy mission I've ever run, players who don't know how to complete vaults would simply use ciphers, making the mission really unlikely to fail. The only exception are sortie spy missions - but the mission fails on first failed vault, not giving anyone time to see that the mission is "about to fail" and quit instead. So your complaint can't really be applied to sortie spy missions.

As for Steel Path - by the time you get there (unless you are taxi-ed there way before you are actually able to unlock it yourself), you tend to have enough resources of all kinds to not care about the pitiful amounts you would get/lose by staying in the mission till failure or quitting it. So again, your proposals don't really apply there - since the proposed measures would do precisely nothing to affect the change of behaviour you desire. If you want players at that level to stay to the bitter end, the payoff for doing so must be quite significant, some credits and a bunch of plastids won't do it.

 

41 minutes ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

This doesn't make feedback of this kind pointless, however, because you can say that for anything: "Oh well, max integer damage may be bad but they have new content they need to focus on." The line on how reasonable that response is needs to be drawn carefully.

Please review the pinned post in this forum section:

What I've been pointing out to you corresponds to point number 2 - "Back it up". You are simply not providing concrete realistic in-game situations where this change would be visible and useful. It's taken you three pages of this thread to come up with a contrived example of when such a situation might occur - and even that example seems extremely unlikely!

Other posters in this thread have covered at length why they think your proposed change in not a desirable one. I'm not disagreeing with them (actually, I think they are right). I simply don't believe your proposal has even reached the bar where its desirability would be worth discussing!

[(NSW)BalticBarbarian]

23 minutes ago, (XBOX)Big Roy 324 said:

On Xbox there are a fair number of quitters.  If you are running a mission in the non-meta.  Have a slight moment of struggle.  Or anything at all happens they don't like.

"**** has left squad"

Because everything is a grind and rewards aren't truly appropriate based on time invested. People will always quit. 

But this is not what's being discussed! The thread is specifically about people quitting the mission just before failure in order to gain mission rewards they otherwise would not have.

"I don't like the squad I'm in" might be a legitimate to leave a public match, and punishing people for doing that is not something you want to be doing in a multiplayer game. The only thing to be discussed around that is the degree of "disliking" the squad that makes things reasonable. "Other 3 players are being toxic" - fair enough. "One other players is wearing a warframe I don't like" - not so much (even if that warframe is wearing a top hat).

There will always be people quitting public matches mid-mission, some of them with legitimate reasons. The reasoning and the change the OP is suggesting affects only one specific case, not all of them.

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

27 minutes ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

But this is not what's being discussed! The thread is specifically about people quitting the mission just before failure in order to gain mission rewards they otherwise would not have.

"I don't like the squad I'm in" might be a legitimate to leave a public match, and punishing people for doing that is not something you want to be doing in a multiplayer game. The only thing to be discussed around that is the degree of "disliking" the squad that makes things reasonable. "Other 3 players are being toxic" - fair enough. "One other players is wearing a warframe I don't like" - not so much (even if that warframe is wearing a top hat).

There will always be people quitting public matches mid-mission, some of them with legitimate reasons. The reasoning and the change the OP is suggesting affects only one specific case, not all of them.

It's actually exactly what's being discussed. It's about the line between quitting and failing being so thin that defaulting to the former is going to be most likely for people. It turns out that if you stay in missions for long periods gathering loot and then abort, you keep some of the rewards but meanwhile if you enter a mission and pick 88 circuits up and then book it, you keep 0. It's some strange magic, but either way, is completely irrelevant to the point I'm... trying... to make: if failure was rewarded better than quitting outright, people would be more willing to deal with mission failure which would have a number of positive effects such as more risk-taking and less meta-slaving and, of course, DE would get their fail count stat bumped up like they want it to be and it'd be done without causing problems.

I originally used the example of mission abortion giving more rewards than mission failure to make the point, but it turns out that there's a bit more to it than that. While it's unfortunate that I can't farm my 88 circuits by repeatedly entering and leaving missions with a circuit box next to the door, it's also completely irrelevant because even with all rewards normalized, basic human psychology means that people will still choose to leave rather than fail the mission. This means that my point is the same regardless: encouraging people to accept failure would be good, because encouraging them to run away repeatedly (unless they're, like, farming Stalker spawns or something) is kind of unfitting to both DE's vision of the game, and the idea of a Tenno. The problem with any haphazard measure to punish people who leave missions further is at best grounds for DE to lose the casual audience, so the only solution left is to increase rewards for staying until the end. You'd still obviously get way less than if you succeeded. This would affect all mission failures, not just 'one specific case' - this isn't about the specific mission on Ceres, it was only an example of how a change like this would benefit people.

[(NSW)BalticBarbarian]

7 hours ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

It's actually exactly what's being discussed. It's about the line between quitting and failing being so thin that defaulting to the former is going to be most likely for people. It turns out that if you stay in missions for long periods gathering loot and then abort, you keep some of the rewards but meanwhile if you enter a mission and pick 88 circuits up and then book it, you keep 0. It's some strange magic, but either way, is completely irrelevant to the point I'm... trying... to make: if failure was rewarded better than quitting outright, people would be more willing to deal with mission failure which would have a number of positive effects such as more risk-taking and less meta-slaving and, of course, DE would get their fail count stat bumped up like they want it to be and it'd be done without causing problems.

I originally used the example of mission abortion giving more rewards than mission failure to make the point, but it turns out that there's a bit more to it than that. While it's unfortunate that I can't farm my 88 circuits by repeatedly entering and leaving missions with a circuit box next to the door, it's also completely irrelevant because even with all rewards normalized, basic human psychology means that people will still choose to leave rather than fail the mission. This means that my point is the same regardless: encouraging people to accept failure would be good, because encouraging them to run away repeatedly (unless they're, like, farming Stalker spawns or something) is kind of unfitting to both DE's vision of the game, and the idea of a Tenno. The problem with any haphazard measure to punish people who leave missions further is at best grounds for DE to lose the casual audience, so the only solution left is to increase rewards for staying until the end. You'd still obviously get way less than if you succeeded. This would affect all mission failures, not just 'one specific case' - this isn't about the specific mission on Ceres, it was only an example of how a change like this would benefit people.

How new a player are you? Do you honestly believe people care whether or not they get those 88 circuits? or even 888? For all but the newest of warframe players, the consideration of "will I lose those 88 circuits that I've farmed in this mission" never comes into their minds! Because these are not the mission rewards they are actually concerned with!

People leave a squad mid-mission because they don't want to play with that squad any more. For any reason whatsoever. Usually, it has nothing to do with failing the mission. Your proposed measures address only one possible reason for leaving the squad, and not the one that occurs with any frequency. And rewarding mission failure is not going to change anything!

And if people frequently leave the squads you're in - that likely has nothing to do with the mission getting anywhere near failing!

If you do indeed get some of the loot when you quit mid-mission - then it is absolutely a bug and needs fixing. But not in the direction you're proposing. Quitting the mission should give you none of the loot - same as how failing the mission should give you none of the loot. Because a mission failure is a failure. And failure should not be rewarded!

BTW, editing the original post of a thread is really bad form. Makes it seem like you're trying to change your story...

 

[Birdframe_Prime]

36 minutes ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

How new a player are you?

Around 50-60 hours last we checked, and purposely not attempting The Second Dream for the reason that the drop chance of the Stalker weapons halves after that.

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

14 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Around 50-60 hours last we checked, and purposely not attempting The Second Dream for the reason that the drop chance of the Stalker weapons halves after that.

50-60 on this account, but...
...well, I have the same Steam name and you can check the recorded playtime there. I won't spoil it.

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

15 hours ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

How new a player are you? Do you honestly believe people care whether or not they get those 88 circuits? or even 888? For all but the newest of warframe players, the consideration of "will I lose those 88 circuits that I've farmed in this mission" never comes into their minds! Because these are not the mission rewards they are actually concerned with!

People leave a squad mid-mission because they don't want to play with that squad any more. For any reason whatsoever. Usually, it has nothing to do with failing the mission. Your proposed measures address only one possible reason for leaving the squad, and not the one that occurs with any frequency. And rewarding mission failure is not going to change anything!

And if people frequently leave the squads you're in - that likely has nothing to do with the mission getting anywhere near failing!

If you do indeed get some of the loot when you quit mid-mission - then it is absolutely a bug and needs fixing. But not in the direction you're proposing. Quitting the mission should give you none of the loot - same as how failing the mission should give you none of the loot. Because a mission failure is a failure. And failure should not be rewarded!

BTW, editing the original post of a thread is really bad form. Makes it seem like you're trying to change your story...

 

I'm not new by any means, only using a new account that becomes less new in terms of playtime as time goes on. Originally I had this account to test out the new quests (I went through the game on my previous account in ~2016) and took a liking to the progression, so I stuck with it and see no reason to use my previous account.

People don't care what you play so long as life support stays above a certain threshold, but once it drops below that threshold people will immediately leave en-masse. If it was one player I could chalk it up to "this squad sux" but when 2-3 people will consistently leave once the threshold for failure of whatever mission type is met, it becomes less reasonable to chalk it up to people hating the squad. After all, they got that far w/ the squad they would've otherwise left because of.

"Failure doesn't deserve to be rewarded" is an opinion. Your opinion is irrelevant. This isn't to say that your opinion is meaningless or unfounded, but that it's irrelevant to this discussion. DE has explicitly stated that they want more people to fail missions and my post has nothing to do with your opinion on whether failure should be rewarded or not because it exclusively suggests a way for DE to get what they want without causing problems. If you want to debate whether failure should be rewarded or not (you know, for funsies) you can add me and we can duke it out in the marketplace of ideas and, if you want, post the 'victor' here.

I can edit my post if I think it'll get the argument across better. That's the only standard I have. I really do not care about anything else.

[Uhkretor]

15 hours ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

BTW, editing the original post of a thread is really bad form. Makes it seem like you're trying to change your story

... It does, doesn't it...?

[nslay]

You're right. There needs to be a persistently laughing Vay Hek in the Mission Failure screen... maybe sometimes, MITW can join in the laughter when he spawns after we fail a mission.

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

3 minutes ago, nslay said:

You're right. There needs to be a persistently laughing Vay Hek in the Mission Failure screen... maybe sometimes, MITW can join in the laughter when he spawns after we fail a mission.

That'd be a pretty funny addition, so yeah I'm all for it.

[(XBOX)Rez090]

On 2021-08-27 at 1:01 PM, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

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.

Then you bring a freaking healer, DUDE. This is a you problem, not "feedback".

[(NSW)Greybones]

50 minutes ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

I'm not new by any means, only using a new account that becomes less new in terms of playtime as time goes on. Originally I had this account to test out the new quests (I went through the game on my previous account in ~2016) and took a liking to the progression, so I stuck with it and see no reason to use my previous account.

People don't care what you play so long as life support stays above a certain threshold, but once it drops below that threshold people will immediately leave en-masse. If it was one player I could chalk it up to "this squad sux" but when 2-3 people will consistently leave once the threshold for failure of whatever mission type is met, it becomes less reasonable to chalk it up to people hating the squad. After all, they got that far w/ the squad they would've otherwise left because of.

"Failure doesn't deserve to be rewarded" is an opinion. Your opinion is irrelevant. This isn't to say that your opinion is meaningless or unfounded, but that it's irrelevant to this discussion. DE has explicitly stated that they want more people to fail missions and my post has nothing to do with your opinion on whether failure should be rewarded or not because it exclusively suggests a way for DE to get what they want without causing problems. If you want to debate whether failure should be rewarded or not (you know, for funsies) you can add me and we can duke it out in the marketplace of ideas and, if you want, post the 'victor' here.

I can edit my post if I think it'll get the argument across better. That's the only standard I have. I really do not care about anything else.

Aw, I kind of liked the speech in your OP.

That said, the new edit does look like a condensed version of what you originally said (far as I understood it). I can appreciate brevity; makes things less likely to be misinterpreted.

The claim that DE explicitly said they wanted more people to fail is of interest to me; do you have a devstream or something?

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

36 minutes ago, (XBOX)Rez090 said:

Then you bring a freaking healer, DUDE. This is a you problem, not "feedback".

Ah yes, I like having my frame mandated for me before I even enter the mission.

35 minutes ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

Aw, I kind of liked the speech in your OP.

That said, the new edit does look like a condensed version of what you originally said (far as I understood it). I can appreciate brevity; makes things less likely to be misinterpreted.

The claim that DE explicitly said they wanted more people to fail is of interest to me; do you have a devstream or something?

I'm going to have to ask around for the devstream and timestamp because with 156 hours of stream, looking through all of it to find the exact stream's going to cause a lot of suffering. I do know that it was before melee 3.0 came out, however, so that's a start. I'll reply to you again when I find it. I asked in the Players Helping Players subforum and I'll spam Q&A every once in a while for an answer too.