Make it mandatory to have a relic if running fissures on public

[PrimalordialBob]

1 hour ago, (PSN)max141064 said:

Doing the exact mission to farm void traces is doing something that hurts others? 

i didn't realize that you can't do a quest for the reason it was created to begin with because you will hurt others...

They can do the mission in singleplayer, not in public which has unofficially become the place to run random int relics for traces/prime parts.

[drnlmza]

7 hours ago, krc473 said:

What about the mistake of people in team starting the timer, preventing this person from bring a relic? It may not be the fault of the person without one. I know if I pick a relic at the same time as someone selects a mission I tend to show as having the relic (before entering the mission), but not be able to open it. There are many things that could cause someone to not have a relic.

 

I'll add that someone not having an entry in the reward screen is also not proof that they didn't have a relic. They might simply not have been able to collect the required reactant for some reason (loading in late into a capture mission, groups splitting up in survival, mistiming finishing a round in excavation, etc).

[CephalonCarnage]

The arguments "farming void traces" isn't really good enough, as if you took a relic and other players chose your reward, you get that +5 void traces, which helps a lot.

More often the problem with taking a relic is that the UI breaks, if you try to improve a relic and run out of time, you end up starting with none - and nobody wants the start mission screen timer to last forever until everyone has chosen, because sooner or later someone will be AFK after a run while the rest of the team click "repeat mission" and have to sit waitimg, or someone goes AFK in the middle of an endless run.

I've also had situations where I ended up in a team without a relic through no fault of my own but someone force starting before I had chopsen (or thought I had, and it turned out the game had other ideas).

The best solution to this is to chill out, there are plenty of matches you can play, if one doesn't go your way, chill and run another. Like you were going to anyway. Getting all agitated and butthurt over nothing is not helping your mental health.

[(XBOX)Rez090]

[NinjaZeku]

3 hours ago, drnlmza said:

But how is this hurting other players?

They're taking the slot of someone who'd actually use a Relic (which, you know, is kind of the main point of running Fissures),
thus making the other 3 players lose out on a reward choice, all for their own selfish gains.

[Silligoose]

13 hours ago, MagPrime said:

Or, use recruit and make a team for running relics instead of relying on others to play like you want.   Public is a no-mans land, don't run it if you aren't prepared for lawlessness.

How about if players do recruit a squad and someone still doesn't equip a relic? I mean, players shouldn't see that as an issue either according to your logic I'm guessing? Will you then come with another idea such as "Or recruit players you only know personally IRL and make a team for running relics instead of relying on others you don't know to play like you want".

I'm all for allowing players to play different ways, but there are limits. What's next? Should players tolerate those who afk from the start of missions? Maybe we should just tolerate the Limbo's trolling teammates as well? Can't expect them to play a certain way, right?

Lines need to be drawn to prevent a few bad apples from spoiling the barrel.

[MagPrime]

13 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

How about if players do recruit a squad and someone still doesn't equip a relic? I mean, players shouldn't see that as an issue either according to your logic I'm guessing? Will you then come with another idea such as "Or recruit players you only know personally IRL and make a team for running relics instead of relying on others you don't know to play like you want".

No, actually.  I support a vote kick in private lobbies and in that instance, it would be appropriate to use such feature for a player who is refusing to adhere to the agreed upon course of action.  I've made several suggestions along the lines of adding vote kick to everything but solo & public, as well as a handful of other features that are lobby specific. 

13 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

I'm all for allowing players to play different ways, but there are limits. What's next? Should players tolerate those who afk from the start of missions? Maybe we should just tolerate the Limbo's trolling teammates as well? Can't expect them to play a certain way, right?

Yes, there are limits and those are set by DE not the playerbase.  You're proving an excellent reason why of that.  :)

14 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

Lines need to be drawn to prevent a few bad apples from spoiling the barrel.

What makes a bad apple in an international gaming community varies wildly.  

[Silligoose]

10 minutes ago, MagPrime said:

No, actually.  I support a vote kick in private lobbies and in that instance, it would be appropriate to use such feature for a player who is refusing to adhere to the agreed upon course of action.  I've made several suggestions along the lines of adding vote kick to everything but solo & public, as well as a handful of other features that are lobby specific. 

Yes, there are limits and those are set by DE not the playerbase.  You're proving an excellent reason why of that.  :)

What makes a bad apple in an international gaming community varies wildly.  

Great, so you kick the one and recruit another chancer, who got away with it once and as a result tries again. Then you kick him and another chancer appears. This either can be  nipped in the bud to maintain the good-natured spirit the Warframe community generally embodies, or the problem can be left alone and be allowed to fester. I'm on the side nipping it in the bud in this case.

DE's decisions regarding limits include players sentiment, though that sometimes gets trumped. Based on the sentiment of this thread, trumping would be a good way to go.

Some bad apples are pretty easy to spot Tenno.

 

 

 

[MagPrime]

1 minute ago, Silligoose said:

Great, so you kick the one and recruit another chancer, who got away with it once and as a result tries again. Then you kick him and another chancer appears. This either can be  nipped in the bud to maintain the good-natured spirit the Warframe community generally embodies, or the problem can be left alone and be allowed to fester. I'm on the side nipping it in the bud in this case.

DE's decisions regarding limits include players sentiment, though that sometimes gets trumped. Based on the sentiment of this thread, trumping would be a good way to go.

Some bad apples are pretty easy to spot Tenno.

 

 

 

The Relics have been in game since 2016 and you're giving the impression you believe this is just recently an issue.  I would like to point out that it hasn't been an issue for literal years.  

But, again, you're proving why players shouldn't be dictating policy in public matchmaking.  You view this as "bad apple" behavior, while I and others don't and there isn't anything that needs nipping.  Public has always been utterly random, DE has provided a way to avoid that in the form of the recruitment chat, clan chat, alliance chat & the forums.  The community has extended that to Discord, Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc.  

DE aren't our minders, they're making a game, use the tools provided to take some control over your experience and don't demand someone else do it for you. 

[Silligoose]

19 minutes ago, MagPrime said:

The Relics have been in game since 2016 and you're giving the impression you believe this is just recently an issue.  I would like to point out that it hasn't been an issue for literal years.  

But, again, you're proving why players shouldn't be dictating policy in public matchmaking.  You view this as "bad apple" behavior, while I and others don't and there isn't anything that needs nipping.  Public has always been utterly random, DE has provided a way to avoid that in the form of the recruitment chat, clan chat, alliance chat & the forums.  The community has extended that to Discord, Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc.  

DE aren't our minders, they're making a game, use the tools provided to take some control over your experience and don't demand someone else do it for you. 

Actually I made no assumption as to whether you consider this behavior "bad apple" behavior or not. I actually don't know if you think people who afk the whole mission in public games are bad apples either. You may very well think it is fine and it wouldn't surprise me, due to your reasoning: "...instead of relying on others to play like you want.   Public is a no-mans land, ..."

That's what caught my attention, because , quite frankly, it is garbage. It can be used to excuse many different forms of "playstyles" severely detrimental to the sentiment of community, examples of which I've mentioned.

Public also isn't utterly random - that's complete nonsense. There may be some randomness within the reasons for joining specific mission types or loadouts chosen by players, and some outliers may join missions for unusual reasons, however, one can reliably predict the intention of the vast majority of players who join certain specific missions: This can be done by taking into account both precedent set by the playerbase, as well as the parameters of the mission. eg, players who join pub Sortie Survivals are generally there to complete the survival time and then leave. Players who join pub Tridolon Cull Bounties are generally there to try and capture all three Eidolons. Players who join pub Phase 4 Profit Taker bounties are generally there to kill PT and yes, players who join pub Void Fissure missions are generally there to crack a relic and share the benefit of cracking said relic with  other random players who also have relics equipped, without having to form a squad to do so. it is a nice convenience for the majority of players. 

For your information, developers are the players' minders. Developers generally let players do their thing, but they'll step in when it becomes apparent that a growing number of the community start misbehaving, by setting certain parameters.

I wouldn't be surprised if suggestions like the OP's gets implemented at some stage, especially if the problem is encountered occurs more and more often. It's a good idea that nips the issue in the bud and it enforces the idea behind public Void Fissure missions. With a tweak it can even address the other issue I've seen players mention a few times: Players joining and leaving Void Fissure Missions repeatedly in hopes of finding someone with a specific relic equipped. Simply hide the equipped relic from teammates in pub matches - no one needs to know what you have equipped, just that you have one. A nice two-for-one right there, sorting out two issues that pop up repeatedly with regards to Void Fissure Missions with one little update.

[MagPrime]

8 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

Actually I made no assumption as to whether you consider this behavior "bad apple" behavior or not. I actually don't know if you think people who afk the whole mission in public games are bad apples either. You may very well think it is fine and it wouldn't surprise me, due to your reasoning: "...instead of relying on others to play like you want.   Public is a no-mans land, ..."

That's what caught my attention, because , quite frankly, it is garbage. It can be used to excuse many different forms of "playstyles" severely detrimental to the sentiment of community, examples of which I've mentioned.

Garbage or not, it's true.  There are no rules enforced by DE beyond what they enforce in the rest of the game, meaning there is nothing special about public matchmaking.  You're even paired with people you have on ignore.

And I suggest reading my comment again.  At not point did I say you were making an assumption about my opinion on what a bad apple is, I've said it's subjective and varies wildly in such a massive community.   I said you were giving the impression that this is a new situation with Relic missions when it's not.  

If you want to know my stance on AFK'ers; I don't know what's going on behind their screen.  Multiple times I've been sucked into missions by auto starters because of the wonky host migration or I've been standing still for most of a mission because on my side, I'm still loading in but everyone else is at Extraction.  Judging by your posts, you consider AFK'ers to be bad apples and give not one care to what's actually happening.

Should I be punished because of connection issues and you assume I'm AFK'ing?  Plenty of people here think that I should, just because they perceive me to have been intentionally AFK.

If a player is undeniably AFK'ing, take screenshots and record game play, submit it to DE Support.  A player gets enough reports like that, DE handles them.

Short of very obvious AFK behavior, like stating "I'm gonna leech" you can't prove I was doing it intentionally. 

23 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

Public also isn't utterly random - that's complete nonsense. There may be some randomness within the reasons for joining specific mission types or loadouts chosen by players, and some outliers may join missions for unusual reasons, however, one can reliably predict the intention of the vast majority of players who join certain specific missions: This can be done by taking into account both precedent set by the playerbase, as well as the parameters of the mission. eg, players who join pub Sortie Survivals are generally there to complete the survival time and then leave. Players who join pub Tridolon Cull Bounties are generally there to try and capture all three Eidolons. Players who join pub Phase 4 Profit Taker bounties are generally there to kill PT and yes, players who join pub Void Fissure missions are generally there to crack a relic and share the benefit of cracking said relic with  other random players who also have relics equipped, without having to form a squad to do so. it is a nice convenience for the majority of players. 

I actually worked out a response to this but you've gone pedantic and I'm not sure if you just missed the mark or are being obtuse.  

24 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

For your information, developers are the players' minders. Developers generally let players do their thing, but they'll step in when it becomes apparent that a growing number of the community start misbehaving, by setting certain parameters.

I wouldn't be surprised if suggestions like the OP's gets implemented at some stage, especially if the problem is encountered occurs more and more often. It's a good idea that nips the issue in the bud and it enforces the idea behind public Void Fissure missions. With a tweak it can even address the other issue I've seen players mention a few times: Players joining and leaving Void Fissure Missions repeatedly in hopes of finding someone with a specific relic equipped. Simply hide the equipped relic from teammates in pub matches - no one needs to know what you have equipped, just that you have one. A nice two-for-one right there, sorting out two issues that pop up repeatedly with regards to Void Fissure Missions with one little update.

May be a cultural gap but being someones minder isn't what a game dev is for.  Minders is a term for the person changing adult diapers and making sure mentally unstable people don't become violent or wander into traffic or they make sure they're always observed.  Constantly at the persons side, minding their every move.  That's not what a game dev is for.

DE has set the parameters, they constantly monitor player activity (seriously, they track number of Warframes used across platforms, how often a specific power is used, etc.) if this was the issue it's claimed to be, DE would have already taken care of it.  And that is backed up by the original Acolyte event where people were leaving the group if they didn't get the mod they wanted.  DE sorted that out within a days of the event launch.

Your example of people leaving Relic missions because they don't see the Relic they want?   I'd love to see proof that's an issue and that not one was having connection or real life issues that pulled them away.  Because, that's something I've experienced as well!  Shocking, I'm sure.  But I have queued for Relic missions, gone through the loading screen and then get dumped back into the Liset with no team because of a connection problem.  I've left Relic missions because of real life situations that come before a video game.

Should I be punished for leaving a Relic mission because you perceived me to leave over not seeing a Relic I wanted?  At what point should you have to provide proof that's what happened?  How exactly would you prove that I left because there wasn't a Relic I wanted in there and not because of any above reason?

All you can do is prove that I left the team.  You can't even prove that I looked at the equipped Relics before leaving. 

Things like OP's idea being put into the public matchmaking, for anything, would be surprising unless the entire playerbase collectively lost it's mind and engaged in this behavior.  Will there eventually, hopefully, be changes made that give players even more agency in teams?  I certainly hope so.  But I'm willing to put plat down that it wont be a blanket thing like has been suggested simply due to the variety of what if's and possibilities due to lack of proof.

[Silligoose]

1 hour ago, MagPrime said:

Garbage or not, it's true.  There are no rules enforced by DE beyond what they enforce in the rest of the game, meaning there is nothing special about public matchmaking.  You're even paired with people you have on ignore.

And I suggest reading my comment again.  At not point did I say you were making an assumption about my opinion on what a bad apple is, I've said it's subjective and varies wildly in such a massive community.   I said you were giving the impression that this is a new situation with Relic missions when it's not.  

You assume too much. The reason was garbage. We'll get to a better reason you provide later.

I also suggest you consider the context of the debate.

1 hour ago, MagPrime said:

I actually worked out a response to this but you've gone pedantic and I'm not sure if you just missed the mark or are being obtuse.  

Suppose I'll have to make due missing out. Oh well.

1 hour ago, MagPrime said:

May be a cultural gap but being someones minder isn't what a game dev is for.  Minders is a term for the person changing adult diapers and making sure mentally unstable people don't become violent or wander into traffic or they make sure they're always observed.  Constantly at the persons side, minding their every move.  That's not what a game dev is for.

Might be cultural. I just use the definition: "To take care of something or someone." and apply context. No, it doesn't necessarily mean 24-hour supervision watching every little single action taken. 

1 hour ago, MagPrime said:

DE has set the parameters, they constantly monitor player activity (seriously, they track number of Warframes used across platforms, how often a specific power is used, etc.) if this was the issue it's claimed to be, DE would have already taken care of it.  And that is backed up by the original Acolyte event where people were leaving the group if they didn't get the mod they wanted.  DE sorted that out within a days of the event launch.

Your example of people leaving Relic missions because they don't see the Relic they want?   I'd love to see proof that's an issue and that not one was having connection or real life issues that pulled them away.  Because, that's something I've experienced as well!  Shocking, I'm sure.  But I have queued for Relic missions, gone through the loading screen and then get dumped back into the Liset with no team because of a connection problem.  I've left Relic missions because of real life situations that come before a video game.

Arguing that DE may not consider it a problem, is a far, FAR better than your reason. Whether or not that validates a perceived issue or not is up for debate: Players were voicing their concerns with regards to the discrepancy in power between melee and ranged for quite some time prior to DE taking action. Does that mean it wasn't issue before DE took action? No - objectively it was a massive imbalance and players who voiced their concerns had a valid argument, but one could argue that despite the obvious imbalance, it wasn't an issue, or at least a big enough issue, in DE's eyes.

You are welcome to look up the threads if you want. They are in these forums,  pretty easy to find I'm sure. Just as I am welcome to go look up the changes you mention regarding the first Acolyte event if I want proof. I'm sure it would be easy to find if I was interested in looking it up.

1 hour ago, MagPrime said:

If you want to know my stance on AFK'ers; I don't know what's going on behind their screen.  Multiple times I've been sucked into missions by auto starters because of the wonky host migration or I've been standing still for most of a mission because on my side, I'm still loading in but everyone else is at Extraction.  Judging by your posts, you consider AFK'ers to be bad apples and give not one care to what's actually happening.

Should I be punished because of connection issues and you assume I'm AFK'ing?  Plenty of people here think that I should, just because they perceive me to have been intentionally AFK.

If a player is undeniably AFK'ing, take screenshots and record game play, submit it to DE Support.  A player gets enough reports like that, DE handles them.

Short of very obvious AFK behavior, like stating "I'm gonna leech" you can't prove I was doing it intentionally. 

Again you assume too much. Habitual intentional afk'ers are bad apples. Players who habitually jump into fissure missions and jump out when they see others don't have a relic they were hoping for, are bad apples are well - their selfish actions are to the detriment of other players and if their habits spread, it would make the overall experience of pub games more frustrating. 

Now with regards to the examples you provide: That would generally be easily identified as outlier cases ie players leaving due to an emergency, or because they lost connection or power etc. Data would be able to distinguish between innocent outlier cases and habitual cases and before you even ask: Yes, games also punish innocent habitual leavers with a pub time-out and for good reason: They are affecting other players' experience negatively more often than not. I see no issue with that and I've been within the demographic that has had connection issues due to geographical location and ISP ineptitude.

1 hour ago, MagPrime said:

Should I be punished for leaving a Relic mission because you perceived me to leave over not seeing a Relic I wanted?  At what point should you have to provide proof that's what happened?  How exactly would you prove that I left because there wasn't a Relic I wanted in there and not because of any above reason?

All you can do is prove that I left the team.  You can't even prove that I looked at the equipped Relics before leaving. 

The funny thing is, I wouldn't need to prove anything if pub games don't show ally relics equipped. That's the beauty of the suggestion: No guesswork required - I'd know you didn't leave as a result of the relics equipped by teammates. Simple. Effective. 

[Hobie-wan]

Don't expect miracles from public groups so you can be pleasantly surprised when things go well. Sure public stuff goes fine most of the time, but recruiting exists for a reason.

[MagPrime]

28 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

You assume too much. The reason was garbage. We'll get to a better reason you provide later.

I also suggest you consider the context of the debate.

The context of the "debate" is clear and I'm not making assumptions, I'm explaining my reasoning.  Either you don't understand that or you're choosing to not understand.  To borrow your own tactic; your approach to this is utter garbage in that you're ignoring the context of the topic to make invalid points and try to claim that punishing players who play differently than you is the better option instead of taking control of your own experience.

28 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

Might be cultural. I just use the definition: "To take care of something or someone." and apply context. No, it doesn't necessarily mean 24-hour supervision watching every little single action taken. 

In this context, it does.  It's why I used it because that's what I meant when I used it.   Your lack of understanding doesn't change that nor does your definition supplant the one I provided to clarify my comment.  Game devs are not minders, every player has been given the tools to manage their experience to a level DE cannot provide at this time.  Use them instead of trying to force others to play the way you deem "correct" 

Or Hek, suggest better tools to give players their agency instead of blanket changes that create unfair situations on players that don't hold you ideals or standards of game play.

28 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

Arguing that DE may not consider it a problem, is a far, FAR better than your reason. Whether or not that validates a perceived issue or not is up for debate: Players were voicing their concerns with regards to the discrepancy in power between melee and ranged for quite some time prior to DE taking action. Does that mean it wasn't issue before DE took action? No - objectively it was a massive imbalance and players who voiced their concerns had a valid argument, but one could argue that despite the obvious imbalance, it wasn't an issue, or at least a big enough issue, in DE's eyes.

Your valuing of my reasoning has no impact on my reasoning, it hasn't changed.  In fact, it rather supports it.  DE hasn't seen public match making an issue in the 8+ years the game as been active because they haven't changed it, making it a no-mans land.

Your example of melee changes doesn't really apply as the imbalance was created by power creep and inattention to the mode.  Matchmaking has no such history.  And I know the threads, I participated in some of them.  

28 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

Again you assume too much. Habitual intentional afk'ers are bad apples. Players who habitually jump into fissure missions and jump out when they see others don't have a relic they were hoping for, are bad apples are well - their selfish actions are to the detriment of other players and if their habits spread, it would make the overall experience of pub games more frustrating. 

Your attempt to point out my over reach with assumption is hindered by your following assumption about players who enter and leave Relic missions with the express reason of not having a Relic they want.  You have no proof they are doing this.  With out that, you are making assumptions and presenting yourself as a hypocrite. 

28 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

Now with regards to the examples you provide: That would generally be easily identified as outlier cases ie players leaving due to an emergency, or because they lost connection or power etc. Data would be able to distinguish between innocent outlier cases and habitual cases and before you even ask: Yes, games also punish innocent habitual leavers with a pub time-out and for good reason: They are affecting other players' experience negatively more often than not. I see no issue with that and I've been within the demographic that has had connection issues due to geographical location and ISP ineptitude.

While I admit I'm not familiar with coding or reports but how, exactly, would the game system know the reason I'm leaving a group?  There is no pop up asking why, there is no crash report if I ALT+F4 out or simply turn off the internet.  

And, again, assumptions.  Do you have any data to support that people leaving missions is negatively impacting player experience?  And to what degree is it impacting it?  Keep in mind, there is a timer on when new players can join a public mission.  So if someone joins & then leaves before the first 5 minutes/waves, then another random player takes their spot.  The team is not hindered as a result.

28 minutes ago, Silligoose said:

The funny thing is, I wouldn't need to prove anything if pub games don't show ally relics equipped. That's the beauty of the suggestion: No guesswork required - I'd know you didn't leave as a result of the relics equipped by teammates. Simple. Effective. 

Claiming the proof would be provided if only they'd implement the change is...wow.  

So we agree you have no proof to the claim that people are constantly doing this to the point where DE needs to step in and make changes, awesome.

Overall, DE needs to improve the matchmaking system that allows like minded players to find eachother easier.  There are numerous in-depth suggestions on how to fix the issue, I urge you and others who feel this way to seek those out and show support for them instead of petty attempts to get DE to punish other players who are different from you.

I know you're going to try responding to this point by point but let's face it, not only have you failed to support your stance with verifiable points but those points are primarily based on assumptions and bias.  This suggestion is not a good one, there are better ones and you should spend your energy supporting, promoting or creating your own that are better for the community, not just you.

Have a great Thursday.

[Tiltskillet]

Just thinking about this a bit more...

It's been a long time since I didn't have a bajillion relics.  But IIRC, there was a time when I barely had any, and no traces.   And I didn't know which ones were valuable, and which ones really needed to be upgraded.  And I had no freaking idea how common relics would get as time went by.

It doesn't seem likely or right to force these people who are just starting the game to play fissures solo until they have a pool of relics.   And not like something DE would do.   They obviously have gone out of their way to not to divide up the playerbase much.

And in my experience, these are almost the only players I've ever seen start a mission without one.    So mandatory relics seem to me like they'd have a negative effect, and I'm really not sure the positive effect exists in any meaningful way.

 

[-AoN-CanoLathra-]

18 hours ago, krc473 said:

What about the mistake of people in team starting the timer, preventing this person from bring a relic? It may not be the fault of the person without one. I know if I pick a relic at the same time as someone selects a mission I tend to show as having the relic (before entering the mission), but not be able to open it. There are many things that could cause someone to not have a relic.

 

Anyone who wants to insist on stuff being a specific way is better off using recruit chat. That is the only way to ensure you get what you want. Unless you have a good reason for the change I doubt it would be implemented. You have to understand the public games are filled of four people doing what they each want to, usually without consideration for what might be the best thing for the group.

Actually, that would be a point in the OP's favor, as having this check (just like the check in Fomorian/Razorback/Weapon Sorties/etc.) would ensure that, if someone tries to start the timer early, it would fail with an error message, instead of starting the mission.

[Silligoose]

33 minutes ago, MagPrime said:

The context of the "debate" is clear and I'm not making assumptions, I'm explaining my reasoning.  Either you don't understand that or you're choosing to not understand.  To borrow your own tactic; your approach to this is utter garbage in that you're ignoring the context of the topic to make invalid points and try to claim that punishing players who play differently than you is the better option instead of taking control of your own experience.

My reason is simple: Players who don't equip Void Relics when joining pub Void Fissure missions do so for no real reason other than to benefit themselves in some way to the detriment of others. I believe that is a valid reason to be opposed to the option, but if you feel that reason is garbage, your opinion on the matter is noted and filed accordingly.

33 minutes ago, MagPrime said:

In this context, it does.  It's why I used it because that's what I meant when I used it.   Your lack of understanding doesn't change that nor does your definition supplant the one I provided to clarify my comment.  Game devs are not minders, every player has been given the tools to manage their experience to a level DE cannot provide at this time.  Use them instead of trying to force others to play the way you deem "correct" 

Or Hek, suggest better tools to give players their agency instead of blanket changes that create unfair situations on players that don't hold you ideals or standards of game play.

It's not "my" definition Tenno. That's the one of the official definitions (google it) and by that definition, yes, game devs also serve as minders to the players. I even considered the cultural difference and did you the courtesy of providing context for the definition.

As a user of an international forum it would be wise for you to consider the international definitions of words and not try to force only your deifinition.

Better tools aren't needed: Make equipping a relic mandatory for pub Void Fissure missions - players who want to run Fissure missions sans relics in a group setting can simply recruit to do so - apparently that is a perfectly acceptable solution.

33 minutes ago, MagPrime said:

Your valuing of my reasoning has no impact on my reasoning, it hasn't changed.  In fact, it rather supports it.  DE hasn't seen public match making an issue in the 8+ years the game as been active because they haven't changed it, making it a no-mans land.

Your example of melee changes doesn't really apply as the imbalance was created by power creep and inattention to the mode.  Matchmaking has no such history.  And I know the threads, I participated in some of them.  

I placed the interesting reasoning in bold: Inattention to the mode.. might apply here. 

33 minutes ago, MagPrime said:

Your attempt to point out my over reach with assumption is hindered by your following assumption about players who enter and leave Relic missions with the express reason of not having a Relic they want.  You have no proof they are doing this.  With out that, you are making assumptions and presenting yourself as a hypocrite. 

Context dear Tenno. Context. Again, you assume... I only see it as a strong possibility, The problem here is you think one needs direct evidence to address likely problems. One doesn't.

Consider the circumstantial evidence: Assuming the data indicates that more players tend to leave Fissure missions prematurely to a significant degree, around the time when new relics are introduced as reported by players, it should be considered a possibility that the reason for this happening is some players looking to be matched with others that have the new relics. 

It is not the only possibility of course, but a possibility none-the-less. Other possibilities would include things like server issues. According to you the data would be available as DE tracks all manner of actions within the game. That being said, should the occurrence of such a pattern be considered a potentially unwanted tactic being employed, a solution to prevent the pattern could eliminate the possibility in its entirety to the detriment of only one demographic: The players who were in making  use of the unwanted tactic. It would also mean that one possible reason for premature mission abortion has been eliminated, narrowing down the potential list of reasons for players leaving Fissure missions prematurely. Win-win all round.

48 minutes ago, MagPrime said:

While I admit I'm not familiar with coding or reports but how, exactly, would the game system know the reason I'm leaving a group?  There is no pop up asking why, there is no crash report if I ALT+F4 out or simply turn off the internet.  

And, again, assumptions.  Do you have any data to support that people leaving missions is negatively impacting player experience?  And to what degree is it impacting it?  Keep in mind, there is a timer on when new players can join a public mission.  So if someone joins & then leaves before the first 5 minutes/waves, then another random player takes their spot.  The team is not hindered as a result.

4 hours ago, MagPrime said:

DE has set the parameters, they constantly monitor player activity (seriously, they track number of Warframes used across platforms, how often a specific power is used, etc.)

You are the one claimed DE tracks all sorts of data points, so I'm sure there would be data available indicating the detrimental effect of having players leave missions.

There would be data available indicating whether a player has lost connection or aborted a mission.

The games can prevent new players joining a mission after an objective has been completed, which can be extremely fast in Capture or Rescue mission types.

54 minutes ago, MagPrime said:

Claiming the proof would be provided if only they'd implement the change is...wow.  

So we agree you have no proof to the claim that people are constantly doing this to the point where DE needs to step in and make changes, awesome.

Overall, DE needs to improve the matchmaking system that allows like minded players to find eachother easier.  There are numerous in-depth suggestions on how to fix the issue, I urge you and others who feel this way to seek those out and show support for them instead of petty attempts to get DE to punish other players who are different from you.

I know you're going to try responding to this point by point but let's face it, not only have you failed to support your stance with verifiable points but those points are primarily based on assumptions and bias.  This suggestion is not a good one, there are better ones and you should spend your energy supporting, promoting or creating your own that are better for the community, not just you.

Have a great Thursday.

DE receives feedback from players such as the OP and can look at the data they have available to draw conclusions on potential occurrences. 

I didn't say proof would be provided. I said proof wouldn't even be needed. There is a difference and it is rather important. Go through the paragraph in this post with regards to circumstantial evidence. Make sure you understand it. 

Finally, take step back and consider which demographics would be affected positively and negatively when suggestions made by the OP and myself are implemented. I stated why your reasoning was... insufficient. Go ahead and tell me which demographics are negatively affected should the suggestions be implemented and tell me why that is a bad thing when compared to the demographics that benefit.

[Tesseract7777]

22 hours ago, PrimalordialBob said:

If someone wants to run a fissure on public rather than single player it should be mandatory that they put in a relic. I did 2 public runs, and each time the same guy didn't have a relic. He was MR 14, so it was by no means a noob mistake. 

How does it hurt you?

You had slightly less of a chance of getting something good you weren't even going for from another random?

Apart from that, it doesn't even affect you at all. 

I don't know why you even care. I run all my relics public in the hopes of maybe getting something random and cool I didn't expect, but it is just a nice surprise. You are expecting too much from public games. 

[PrimalordialBob]

1 hour ago, Tesseract7777 said:

How does it hurt you?

You had slightly less of a chance of getting something good you weren't even going for from another random?

Apart from that, it doesn't even affect you at all. 

I don't know why you even care. I run all my relics public in the hopes of maybe getting something random and cool I didn't expect, but it is just a nice surprise. You are expecting too much from public games. 

Why can't they just go into solo if they are going after traces? The unsaid rule of public is to farm traces/ open random relics. Breaking that unsaid rule is a bit rude

[Tesseract7777]

9 minutes ago, PrimalordialBob said:

Why can't they just go into solo if they are going after traces? The unsaid rule of public is to farm traces/ open random relics. Breaking that unsaid rule is a bit rude

Maybe not the greatest etiquette sure, but it isn't against the ToS. 

[Sakatchi]

I don't use a relic when I'm farming void traces cause I'm the goddamn god of getting forma blueprints. And If you somehow found yourself in my game you should thank me for not cursing you with forma.

[Tesseract7777]

1 hour ago, Sakatchi said:

I don't use a relic when I'm farming void traces cause I'm the goddamn god of getting forma blueprints. And If you somehow found myself in my game you should thank me for not cursing you with forma.

Also unless I am much mistaken, if you don't take a relic, you don't get to pick from the rewards at the end. 

So sure, the group gets one less chance at a random goodie no one besides the relic holder was expecting anyways.

But that person who didn't give the group one more chance at a random goodie, gets absolutely nothing if someone on the team rolls a gold, except for the traces they were farming. So it evens out perfectly. No one gets more or less than their fair share for what they brought to the mission. 

[L3512]

6 minutes ago, Tesseract7777 said:

But that person who didn't give the group one more chance at a random goodie, gets absolutely nothing if someone on the team rolls a gold, except for the traces they were farming. 

Correct, so unless people don't have relics it's always better to run one.

One of the last shortish random survivals I ran drop one Gara prime blueprint and I think 3 Vectis prime receivers all from intact relics (all rare).

My internet DC'd but I managed to reconnect though Ordis magically turned a Vectis receiver into a forma 🤣,

So I only got two lol.

[Tesseract7777]

1 minute ago, L3512 said:

Correct, so unless people don't have relics it's always better to run one.

Indeed. I cannot imagine why someone wouldn't bother to just bring along SOME random relic. I mean at the end of the day it really hurts them far more than anyone else in the group. Imagine jumping into a pickup fissure with no relic, and at the end the team is shouting in chat about how they got the latest "X Rare Systems BP" and you are sitting there like a jackhole wondering why you did that to yourself as you leave red-faced with a handful of traces and a shameful story you'll never tell anyone.  

[Tesseract7777]

6 minutes ago, L3512 said:

Correct, so unless people don't have relics it's always better to run one.

One of the last shortish random survivals I ran drop one Gara prime blueprint and I think 3 Vectis prime receivers all from intact relics (all rare).

My internet DC'd but I managed to reconnect though Ordis magically turned a Vectis receiver into a forma 🤣,

So I only got two lol.

When my CPU was overheating and I hadn't yet realized what was happening yet, Ordis picked me up a few times... thank Wally for Ordis or I would have lost a lot of prime parts.

It seems when that happens, at least in my experience it defaulted to the one I had rolled, and not the one I picked from another player, but I don't know if you had the same experience or not? I would be curious to know how it worked for you.