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

[(XBOX)Rez090]

5 minutes ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

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

Specters for the ignorant here. Get your specters for the ignorant here.

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

5 minutes ago, (XBOX)Rez090 said:

Specters for the ignorant here. Get your specters for the ignorant here.

I find it funny you think they can spam Trinity's 4. The CD on her 4 for specters is 1 minute. Oh, and she only uses it when her summoner's below 60% health which is... uh... a mere 3/5'ths of their health bar. You're the ignorant one if you think using her specter for the healing is practical. It looks like you're trying to post hoc justify a really stupid statement, but it truly is easier to admit you were wrong and move on.

[(NSW)Greybones]

10 minutes ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

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.

Appreciated 👍. It’s mainly just a self-curiosity thing, so no rush.

🤔 Now that I’ve got a ballpark location it may just be better to leave it to me (unless you know someone who’s like “Yeah, it was this devstream at this point in time”)

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

1 minute ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

Appreciated 👍. It’s mainly just a self-curiosity thing, so no rush.

🤔 Now that I’ve got a ballpark location it may just be better to leave it to me (unless you know someone who’s like “Yeah, it was this devstream at this point in time”)

I'll still respond when I find it just because it'll help. It's not a part of the recent set of streams, was made offhand during a discussion of a challenging content drop (either RJ, Empy, Arbi or SP) and the only reason I know this is that a friend of mine showed me a clip of the stream and I was like "Yeah, sounds about right" and never thought about it again. Woe is me, it would've been an excellent thing to note for the future to cite.

[(XBOX)Rez090]

On 2021-08-27 at 5:56 PM, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Yeah dude, quit showing that you're a troll when we know the truth. Aborting mission = mission failure. You lose everything you picked up, excluding credits and xp kills (bonus xp goes bye-bye).

[(XBOX)Rez090]

31 minutes ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

I find it funny you think they can spam Trinity's 4. The CD on her 4 for specters is 1 minute. Oh, and she only uses it when her summoner's below 60% health which is... uh... a mere 3/5'ths of their health bar. You're the ignorant one if you think using her specter for the healing is practical. It looks like you're trying to post hoc justify a really stupid statement, but it truly is easier to admit you were wrong and move on.

It seems you have some ignorance if you think that Trinity is the only healer, when she isn't.

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

22 minutes ago, (XBOX)Rez090 said:

Yeah dude, quit showing that you're a troll when we know the truth. Aborting mission = mission failure. You lose everything you picked up, excluding credits and xp kills (bonus xp goes bye-bye).

Idk man, coming into a forum post with the words "I didn't read it" seems pretty troll to me... or literally anyone, really.

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

2 minutes ago, (XBOX)Rez090 said:

It seems you have some ignorance if you think that Trinity is the only healer, when she isn't.

 

43 minutes ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

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

https://warframe.fandom.com/wiki/Specter
 

Here's the wiki page on specters. Enjoy.

[(XBOX)Rez090]

Just now, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

Idk man, coming into a forum post with the words "I didn't read it" seems pretty troll to me... or literally anyone, really.

I've read all four pages of this thread. You have yet to truly make an argument that failure should still get rewards.

[(XBOX)Rez090]

1 minute ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

 

 

Again, we have multiple healer frames in the game. You still think that Trinity is the only one. How is that mandating what frame you bring, especially if you bring specters?

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

1 minute ago, (XBOX)Rez090 said:

I've read all four pages of this thread. You have yet to truly make an argument that failure should still get rewards.

Unfortunately, as with other people on the forum, your opinion doesn't matter. DE wants to see people fail missions more, and this is a simple/effective/harmless way to make that happen. I really don't care what your opinion is on whether failure should be rewarded or not.

[(XBOX)Rez090]

Just now, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

Unfortunately, as with other people on the forum, your opinion doesn't matter. DE wants to see people fail missions more, and this is a simple/effective/harmless way to make that happen. I really don't care what your opinion is on whether failure should be rewarded or not.

Except your entire thread here is you trying to push your opinion but disguising it as "feedback".

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

1 minute ago, (XBOX)Rez090 said:

Again, we have multiple healer frames in the game. You still think that Trinity is the only one. How is that mandating what frame you bring, especially if you bring specters?

Here's the wiki page on specters.
https://warframe.fandom.com/wiki/Specter

Now, I'm not sure if you've noticed but all of them rely on player health/shield/energy for casting their abilities. All this tells me is that you don't understand how specters use their abilities, so take a moment to read the wiki if you will.

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

7 minutes ago, (XBOX)Rez090 said:

Except your entire thread here is you trying to push your opinion but disguising it as "feedback".

Saying that "increasing failure rewards = more mission failures" is the same as saying "I think mission failure is good" for sure.

Here's something you might find useful if you're actually under the impression that consequence is the same as opinion. They mean different things. Saying "if you touch the stove, you get burned" is not an opinion, just like saying "if you make mission failure less punishing, more people will fail missions" is not an opinion. An opinion would be "I think chocolate cake sucks" which, notably, is not something that can be proven to be true or not like a consequence can.

[Joezone619]

They don't exactly give out medals for "almost".

[(NSW)Greybones]

1 minute ago, Joezone619 said:

They don't exactly give out medals for "almost".

Maybe not. But damn can it make for some fun

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

1 hour ago, Joezone619 said:

They don't exactly give out medals for "almost".

I've heard some people, typically older, make the argument that participation awards are a bad thing. I've never seen anyone present a convincing argument for why though, and anytime anyone tries to their argument amounts to "participation trophies make people lazy" which is an opinion. Any argument centered on this presupposition assumes that participation awards somehow reduce the effort people put in, as if they wouldn't have to put the effort in to participate in the first place. This is absolutely insane because it's literally easier to not participate at all. Like, one requires you to do the thing and the other requires you not to do the thing. At worst, participation awards encourage people to participate when they otherwise wouldn't. At best, participation awards get people interested in the activity.

Another flawed argument is that participation awards devalue the people who actually win. Again, an insane argument that defies reality. The value we place on gold, silver and bronze medals (and even participation trophies in general) are already 100% arbitrary and so the only reason someone would make this argument is because they personally feel that their achievement would be devalued because everyone else got an award for taking part. This is an argument born of the user's insecurity. The "at least you tried" medal isn't going to be seen as equal to the gold medal the top-level athlete has because the only value placed in the gold medal comes from what it represents, while the "at least you tried" medal represents something else entirely and is therefore valued differently.

Still... to address your point, maybe they should. No-one's going to be doing something risky if an hour or more of loot is wiped clean because the failure's too punishing. The only other way DE could make the risk worth the reward is to have the reward be so insane that it breaks the market, and since there are team synergies that will trivialize any content this would result in small groups of elite players ruining/ruling the whole market. You can see this in practice with EVE's marketplace.

[(NSW)BalticBarbarian]

12 hours 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.

If you think 88 circuits is an amount of resources that people would care about (as you've stated in one of your previous posts), then you are very new. And don't bother editing that post to try and hide your statements - I quote pieces of posts that I respond to to prevent dishonest people from doing just that! Even if this really isn't your first account, previous ones could not have been particularly advanced either. Because, again, "88 circuits".

12 hours ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

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.

Hold on a second! "Life support" means you're talking about a survival mission! In a survival mission, any player can leave at any time after the 5 minute mark! That's not mission failure - the mission objective has been completed and the players are extracting! This has nothing to do with mission failure! Or are you doing pub squads and are just expecting others to stay as long as you want them to stay, irrespective of their own wishes? The only way to fail a survival mission would be to run out of life support before the 5 minute mark. And all you need to do to prevent that from happening is for one of the players to actually be able to kill stuff (and activate capsules). In your other threads, you are claiming that you can solo Steel Path missions, so this should never happen in your missions! Yet it looks like it does...

 

13 hours ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

DE has explicitly stated that they want more people to fail missions

Firstly, please provide sources. Secondly, what was the context of that statement?

Thirdly, if you abort a mission or get disconnected from it due to network failure, the loading screen you see says "mission failed" at the top. To me, that really sounds like the game says you've failed the mission! So... what's the issue? If one of the screens gives you 10 plastids that the other doesn't - then it's a bug that should be fixed. But that would be a bug nobody cares about because nobody cares about these kinds of resources.

[(NSW)BalticBarbarian]

11 hours ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

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.

Absolutely! why would you be expected to do some work to justify something you've repeated and relied upon time and time again? Surely, someone else in the community would be happy to spend hours upon hours to find a quote you've been using to prove you right!

And when someone calls you out about that quote - you can say that it is there and other people are looking for it - they just haven't reported back to you yet!

[(NSW)BalticBarbarian]

9 hours ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

No-one's going to be doing something risky if an hour or more of loot is wiped clean because the failure's too punishing.

What planet are you from? People do it all the time, even in real life! Have y ou ever heard of a casino?

People take risks because it's fun. There will, of course, be times when people will be trying to get something specific out of a mission - and then they won't be taking further risks once they've got it. But most of the time, people won't really care about the resource drops you get throughout the mission! And they go into longer missions purely to push themselves - in which case enemy drops would really not matter in the slightest!

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

5 hours ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

What planet are you from? People do it all the time, even in real life! Have you ever heard of a casino?

People take risks because it's fun. There will, of course, be times when people will be trying to get something specific out of a mission - and then they won't be taking further risks once they've got it. But most of the time, people won't really care about the resource drops you get throughout the mission! And they go into longer missions purely to push themselves - in which case enemy drops would really not matter in the slightest!

People actively avoid gambling for reason upon reason. Casinos actually prove my point for me, in fact: people don't go to them (or at least, shouldn't) if they can't afford a loss. Naturally, lower losses = more people attending. Very simple math. It's not directly applicable because casinos use cash while games use, or at least are supposed to use, in-game currencies with no real-world value, but still is relevant.

Yes, people take risks if it's fun... when they can afford it. Unfortunately, not everyone has several thousand hours in-game and all of the resources that entails. You're projecting your current situation onto everyone else and calling it a day while I, once again, could not care less about your opinion on whether failure should be rewarded more or not. I'm making a statement as simple as "the sky is blue" but different: if failure was rewarded more, people would be more willing to fail.

Limiting mission failure to only people who actively try to fail because they have nothing else to do? That's not my problem, it's theirs. Their life, their choice, and it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about because, indeed, why would you care if there were more resources upon failure if you already have so many of them? There's an underlying motivation for your responses, my friend.

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

5 hours ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

Absolutely! why would you be expected to do some work to justify something you've repeated and relied upon time and time again? Surely, someone else in the community would be happy to spend hours upon hours to find a quote you've been using to prove you right!

And when someone calls you out about that quote - you can say that it is there and other people are looking for it - they just haven't reported back to you yet!

Since the claim still isn't central to the point, it doesn't matter. I'll keep looking of course, because like with the Stalker drop rates it'll be nice when I'm proven right (or maybe wrong, in this case) but if you want to attack my argument you need a solid reason that increasing failure rewards would be bad. So far you've provided exactly one argument: that increasing failure rewards would mean literally nothing to the people who are currently willing to fail missions. You're right, but it's not for them and they don't care regardless. If you don't care about the rewards for failure, why do you... suddenly care, hmm?

[(NSW)BalticBarbarian]

1 hour ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

Casinos actually prove my point for me, in fact: people don't go to them (or at least, shouldn't) if they can't afford a loss.

Did you just claim that people IRL don't gamble with the money they can't afford to lose? How out of touch with the real world do you have to be to make such a claim?

On the other hand, this explains most of your posts - somebody so ignorant of the outside world can't be expected to understand people's motivations. Not sure I can really say anything to help you there!

Good luck! You'll need it!

[Orrion_the_Kitsune]

3 hours ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

Did you just claim that people IRL don't gamble with the money they can't afford to lose? How out of touch with the real world do you have to be to make such a claim?

On the other hand, this explains most of your posts - somebody so ignorant of the outside world can't be expected to understand people's motivations. Not sure I can really say anything to help you there!

Good luck! You'll need it!

 

5 hours ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

Casinos actually prove my point for me, in fact: people don't go to them (or at least, shouldn't) if they can't afford a loss

Emphasis mine. I'm sorry you can't read. If that's the best argument you've got, then thanks for the concession. I'm hoping you know this (I assume you do and that this is just a cope on your part) but gambling addiction is in the DSM-5 because it's a mental illness. Here're some stats for you: turns out, 80%~ of U.S adults gamble on a yearly basis, and only 3-5 of every 100 (3-5%) suffer from what the DSM-5 would qualify as gambling addiction.

We say "humans have five fingers" but yet that isn't always true. We say "humans eat food" but yet some people need to have their food pumped into their stomach. Do you even understand how we use English? Too bad for you, I actually think about the things I say. I'm truly sorry you can't relate, it must be miserable.

Now I'll do it to you for funsies.

9 hours ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

People do it all the time, even in real life!

Wrong. Some casinos are only open during daylight, and many of them will ask you to leave if you stay for extended periods of time. Humans also need sleep, so no, "all the time" is completely incorrect!

9 hours ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

People take risks because it's fun. 

Nope. Some people do it because it's fun. 'People' is too broad after all, and doesn't include all of those statistical anomalies.

9 hours ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

There will, of course, be times when people will be trying to get something specific out of a mission

Wrong again. You mean 'some people' because again, statistical anomalies.

9 hours ago, (NSW)BalticBarbarian said:

And they go into longer missions purely to push themselves - in which case enemy drops would really not matter in the slightest!

Wrong yet again. Some people do it to push themselves, while others do it for the rewards.

See how ridiculous it would be to try this semantic trolling after everything you've written? Humans use language broadly. End of story.

[(NSW)BalticBarbarian]

41 minutes ago, Orrion_the_Kitsune said:

 

Emphasis mine. I'm sorry you can't read. If that's the best argument you've got, then thanks for the concession. I'm hoping you know this (I assume you do and that this is just a cope on your part) but gambling addiction is in the DSM-5 because it's a mental illness. Here're some stats for you: turns out, 80%~ of U.S adults gamble on a yearly basis, and only 3-5 of every 100 (3-5%) suffer from what the DSM-5 would qualify as gambling addiction. Sorry, but people gamble mostly with money they have and when someone doesn't it's a statistical anomaly. Again, if this is the best counter-argument you have, we're done here.

So what you are saying is that people in the real world do take unnecessary risks irrespective of whether or not they can afford them - but in a video game (where the risks are significantly lower due to it being just a video game) they would not take fairly insignificant risks (88 circuits was the number you used) for the sake of having fun? And in terms of affordability - everyone can afford an extra hour of playing a game before they reach an in-game goal! Because it's just a game, and all the goals are consequence-free! So the relevant number is not the 5% figure from your statistics - it's the 80% one!

But I do apologise for trying to find an interpretation of your words that makes any logical sense whatsoever - I should have realised that logic is not something to be expected there.

And really, what's the mythical risk that you are claiming people are trying so hard to avoid? Having to go play a video game for an extra hour? You've created such a long and convoluted explanation about why people keep abandoning missions you are in (because same doesn't really happen much to me) - but have you never considered that you might be the problem?

A bunch of posts ago, I gave you a link to the "how to give good feedback". Have you tried giving that a read? Because the feedback you are giving is very much lacking in quality!

 

 

BTW, the first link you presented about how gambling addiction is not at all widely spread is from "casino.org". Do you seriously not understand how that source might not be the most trustworthy on the topic? Have you never heard the phrase "conflict of interest"?