4 Possible common "Player conflict zones"

[JeckNoTree]

1: Elevator
2: Double door Button
3: Force start Mission
4: End of Mission waiting

I stated those places, to state, that at those points, some players get really nasty.
of course there is the normal way to fix it, by simply dont be offended if someone doesnt come, but there are always some people who have a short "attention span", and "a lot of rage" in them.

It would be maybe an option to fix at least some of those conflict zones by some special Game settings for those special personalitys. ;)
for example:

"1: Elevator", could always have opening doors on either end (lore wise it would be flush, since the tenno hack the Elevators).

On "2: Double door Button", It could be removed, since why would corpus or grenier have those, in non high security places.

"3: Force start Mission", could be fixed, by a setting a player could toggel, to "if not accepted mission [auto leave]".

"4: End of Mission waiting", there I dont have a big idea, since players still hosting, (exept maybe: setting to toggle on or off: "player who not host the match leave at end of the match instantly when they reach the end).

Thank you for reading.

kind regards
J

[Tyreaus]

Elevators have a potential fix in how Relays do it, effectively generating a new elevator going down or up so players don't need to wait for the first elevator to get back up and cause all the back-and-forth malarky.

Double doors, I believe, are meant to slow down speedrunners so the rest of the squad can catch up. I won't say that works terribly well because you can still leave half the squad behind and the AoE meta nowadays readily affects the squad anyway. So there's some argument for them to stay, even if the issue is a bit overshadowed.

Force starting missions could also be fixed by allowing the player to abort during loading. That's the main issue I see, at least: you're stuck loading into a mission and then having to abort once you finish loading in. If you can abort at any point, that's not a problem.

End of mission certainly has a catch-22, as we've seen with Zariman extractions. Best compromise is, as you say, allowing players to extract early unless host. I don't think that needs to be a setting, though: the Zariman tiles have interactive consoles to individually extract, and I don't see what's wrong with copying that functionality to...anywhere else. Little more immersive, too.

[(PSN)isbergen]

33 minutes ago, JeckNoTree said:

"4: End of Mission waiting", there I dont have a big idea, since players still hosting

Get rid of players hosting mission state, that's how. It gets of rid of host migration and end-of-mission waiting (except for relic cracks, of course). Destiny 2 did this 5 years ago. They better be doing this for cross-play, can you imagine the increase in host-migrations when WF Mobile comes along. 🤯

[nerfinator6]

Well the elevator issue is only on old tilesets now, DE stopped making new tiles with elevators in them because of that issue.

[Pakaku]

14 minutes ago, nerfinator6 said:

Well the elevator issue is only on old tilesets now, DE stopped making new tiles with elevators in them because of that issue.

I'm thinking about the Jupiter elevators at the start of the mission. Even when someone presses the button, it doesn't bottleneck straggling players since they can still drop through. Spy missions on Corpus ships with elevators going down can still let players jump up the elevator shaft and go through the door. They could also be worked into maps as optional elevators.... So I think they can still be used, just do it smart and in a tasteful amount, and toss it if there is even a hint of bottlenecking.

[(XBOX)Big Roy 324]

The only one of these that is a major issue for me is the force start one.

On a slower connection or system.  You don't even get to see your orbiter.  You just start loading into the next mission. This is bigger on Xbox because it is slower.  On PC I can sometimes leave group in time. 

Your option/toggle sounds like a good solution.

For the others they are probably as good as could be expected.  Perhaps a timer on the friendship doors (after 30 seconds the option to hack it appears and you can proceed on your own.)

For the end mission.  The current endless system should be applied to missions with end if they aren't already. After a minute on extract you leave on your own (void missions excepted which pulls all at once). 

 

[JeckNoTree]

4 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

Elevators have a potential fix in how Relays do it, effectively generating a new elevator going down or up so players don't need to wait for the first elevator to get back up and cause all the back-and-forth malarky.

Force starting missions could also be fixed by allowing the player to abort during loading. That's the main issue I see, at least: you're stuck loading into a mission and then having to abort once you finish loading in. If you can abort at any point, that's not a problem.

End of mission certainly has a catch-22, as we've seen with Zariman extractions. Best compromise is, as you say, allowing players to extract early unless host. I don't think that needs to be a setting, though: the Zariman tiles have interactive consoles to individually extract, and I don't see what's wrong with copying that functionality to...anywhere else. Little more immersive, too.

"Tyreaus", great suggestion, since I think those things you said could be easily implemented without leaving anyone behind.
Still I stand to the "toggle force leave on force start" option, (or autoleave squad toggel funktion).

anyways, pretty nice ideas in my opinion :-)

[JeckNoTree]

16 hours ago, (PSN)isbergen said:

Get rid of players hosting mission state, that's how. It gets of rid of host migration and end-of-mission waiting (except for relic cracks, of course). Destiny 2 did this 5 years ago. They better be doing this for cross-play, can you imagine the increase in host-migrations when WF Mobile comes along. 🤯

"(PSN)isbergen", I know what you mean by that, yet I think it's very hard to deploy such a solution, since if players don't host, a server near the player must host (hosted by the company), and if so, either the servers are too far away, and players get a bad Ping, or the costs of keeping the servers online (and a lot of servers everywhere) would rise very substantially,
and warframe would need new ways to monetize, which would maybe ruin the development of the game (money wise).

I wish for the same thing, but at what cost?

A suggestion would be split hosting between all players, but I would not understand or know how to implement such a thing. :)

[(PSN)isbergen]

5 hours ago, JeckNoTree said:

since if players don't host, a server near the player must host (hosted by the company),

Warframe already has servers. They run server scripts and database updates, etc. Becoming host for the tiny mission state would not be much extra load. All other traffic would be P2P (hit scans, map location, etc). It's a hybrid P2P model. 

 

5 hours ago, JeckNoTree said:

warframe would need new ways to monetize

Everything in Warframe is monetized right now. There are gates and RNG to ensure that those fed up with the time sink can bypass it with money.

What Waframe needs is 1) new player direction and hand holding -- right now the game is way to complex and offers almost zero direction/help -- it's causing potential new players to just give up and that is potential lost sales and 2) fix the huge number of bugs in the game, it is pissing off vet players and causing them to leave. Host migration is responsible for a lot of these bugs. The other half is DE shooting themselves in the foot because of internal QA issues. E.g. the still outstanding stack decay bug -- console players are still plagued by it and it took a month for the PC fix. This is ridiculous. It makes players feel like DE doesn't give a crap when a game breaking bug goes unfixed for so long.

[JeckNoTree]

On 2022-07-19 at 7:23 PM, (PSN)isbergen said:

Warframe already has servers. They run server scripts and database updates, etc. Becoming host for the tiny mission state would not be much extra load. All other traffic would be P2P (hit scans, map location, etc). It's a hybrid P2P model. 

 

Everything in Warframe is monetized right now. There are gates and RNG to ensure that those fed up with the time sink can bypass it with money.

What Waframe needs is 1) new player direction and hand holding -- right now the game is way to complex and offers almost zero direction/help -- it's causing potential new players to just give up and that is potential lost sales and 2) fix the huge number of bugs in the game, it is pissing off vet players and causing them to leave. Host migration is responsible for a lot of these bugs. The other half is DE shooting themselves in the foot because of internal QA issues. E.g. the still outstanding stack decay bug -- console players are still plagued by it and it took a month for the PC fix. This is ridiculous. It makes players feel like DE doesn't give a crap when a game breaking bug goes unfixed for so long.

you are right, warframe already has servers, yet they are not made to host every playermission, and I imagine to get a good coverage, they need servers in a lot of locations worldwide for low ping operation.
(and if ever a problem occurs with the servers the players start to blame DE, rn some only blame players with a bad internet connection)
I think if they implement a split host solution, where every player host the instance, and the player PCs ping each other for location and c.o. it would be sufficient.