Players can accidentally stop spawns

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

Before you read!

If youre a person who likes/wants to say "just recruit" i ask kindly that you leave this post and do not comment. This option is a very obvious choice that everyone and their dog knows they can do, therefore its extremely unconstructive and silly to point out, just as silly as saying "the floor is made of floor". Thank you in advance! 🥰

Onto The Topic!

Idk how complicated this is to change but im hoping its not too hard because its EXTREMELY annoying. People are always complaing about their kills be stolen, so in survival, bad players will sometimes choose run off to try and fight enemies on their own so that we cant obliterate all the enemies. Nothing in the game tells them though, that they can stop enemy spawns in every area of the map except where they are by doing this if they arent killing fast enough.

I just got out of a Steelpath Survival game where a player successfully kept us all from getting full reactant and successfully made us keep having to tediously activate life support capsules because getting the drops were impossible to get with him killing so slowly and hogging all the enemies.

Solution

 In natural circumstances where enemies are not affected by a taunting ability, no more than 10 enemies will target a player in a 4 player match at a time. So if people want to run off crying because they cant get a kill, they can do so without forcing us to have to chase them down and no one loses from this sort of gameplay

Its a survival mission afterall, not defense. Seems reasonable to not make grouping a requirement. 

Solution 2

I think this idea is really good too, and doesnt change the game as much as other ideas ive seen. By @(PSN)FunyFlyBoy

'I think a better fix would be to force spawns around the larger group of Tenno within Affinity range of each other. That way people bum rushing elsewhere to get kills will see it's a ghost town till they get back to the players who are grouped up. It makes tactical sense to toss the largest of your host of clones & crewmen at the larger threat of Tenno, that being the ones fighting together than the lone wolf away from the pack.'

A few higher level enemies can go after the lone tenno to pressure them to get back with their team too.

 

 

Thoughts? 

[SDGDen]

17 minutes ago, (PSN)Frost_Nephilim said:

Idk how complicated this is to change but im hoping its not too hard because its EXTREMELY annoying. People are always complaing about their kills be stolen, so in survival, bad players will sometimes choose run off to try and fight enemies on their own so that we cant obliterate all the enemies. Nothing in the game tells them though, that they can stop enemy spawns in every area of the map except where they are by doing this if they arent killing fast enough.

I usually only run into this in one scenario:

when i'm running nekros.

 

It's ALWAYS when i'm trying my best to farm resources that people like to spread out beyond my desecrate range.

[sh00chu]

If you're playing in a group, i.e. CO-OP, staying grouped together should be a hard requirement. If you want to reap the benefits of playing in a group, better loot, more xp, better chance at good relic rewards, then you should have to participate and contribute to your team cooperatively, not by running off like you're Rambo.

My solution: You must be within affinity range of at least one member of your squad. If you are outside of this range for more than 5 seconds, you suffer from increasingly attenuated damage output until you either no longer do damage, or you rejoin your squad.

Is it a perfect solution? Probably not. But much like the recent and ongoing aoe changes, I think this is another area that DE needs to seriously address for the long term health of the game.

[KIREEK]

You are correct, in a scatered team the efficiency is determined by the least efficient player, you have 3 players at most so you need to visit each player to see who is strugling with the kills.

If you have 1 player, stick with that player, if you have 2 or 3 then asking in chat for players to regroup is the best solution, otherwise you'll end up going back and forth.
Note that sticking with said player can cause them to react offensively and even leave the squad.

You want an enemy cap per player?
That would solve it yes, it would certainly stop players from gathering all the enemies in the mission.

[iHaku]

survival actually just needs to be reworked so players stay in the same room/ area together (like having a large beacon that grants air support in one specific room that changes every 5 minutes or something)

theres just no elegant way to solve the current problem besides just not playing in a public party.

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

14 hours ago, sh00chu said:

you're playing in a group, i.e. CO-OP, staying grouped together should be a hard requirement

Co-op game cant be a co-op game if being grouped is optional? 

(Edit: there are games in which players can seperate and cooperatively complete an objective)

Plus when co-op is heavily pressured in warframe i rarily see it being the highlight of the game. I tend to notice that it brings loads of toxic behavior and people getting very annoyed more than anything else.

Co-ops best moments in Warframe if you ask me is when a player rolls up just to offer help. Show off some fashion or become a new friend. Thats what i see most people having fun and being happy about

Not when the entire fate of whether or not you can continue playing the game rest on the player with the IQ of -200. Like letting players take others railjack without first designing a way for the host to kick them off, dont add the feature if it can be so game stopping. 

(Edit: atleast not for public matchmaking. Recruit only makes more sense for such gamemodes. Like how old raids worked that oddly got removed for the interesting reason of lack of player participation 🤔🤔🤔)

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

30 minutes ago, iHaku said:

survival actually just needs to be reworked so players stay in the same room/ area together (like having a large beacon that grants air support in one specific room that changes every 5 minutes or something)

Youre aware defense missions exist? Where you stay in a room/area and survive together

Theres literally no point of having survival missions if the player cant move away from their team. Excavation is infinite mobile defense so you cant even make the argument that its meant to be a mission so the team can stay together and move. Perk, the defense objective usually has so much defense that you dont have to worry about it in most cases, just have to worry about surviving and killing everything quickly! So 1 room survival already exist 

The most elegant way to make survival its own gamemode is to make it where its not another Area defense mission. Give it a perk of letting players move so we can have actual variety in mission gameplay. The goal will be purely and elegantly survival, not 1 room defense

 

Also notice that in doing that, it solves the current problem in public party. A matchmaking setting players choose to quickly start a mission with other players, thats a great choice if the dev teams have the compentance to keep Trolls from forcing mission failure like many mmos allowing public play know how to do by keeping the fate of gameplay not completely rest on 1 player.

[sh00chu]

26 minutes ago, (PSN)Frost_Nephilim said:

Co-op game cant be a co-op game if being grouped is optional? 

Plus when co-op is heavily pressured in warframe i rarily see it being the highlight of the game. I tend to notice that it brings loads of toxic behavior and people getting very annoyed more than anything else.

Co-ops best moments in the game if you ask me is when a player rolls up just to offer help. Show off some fashion or become a new friend

Not when the entire fate of whether or not you can continue playing the game rest on the player with the IQ of -200

 

19 minutes ago, (PSN)Frost_Nephilim said:

Youre aware defense missions exist? Where you stay in a room/area and survive together

Theres literally no point of having survival missions if the player cant move away from their team. Excavation is infinite mobile defense so you cant even make the argument that its meant to be a mission so the team can stay together and move. That already exist as well

The most elegant way to make survival its own gamemode is to make it where its not another Area defense mission. Give it a perk of letting players move so we can have actual variety in mission gameplay

I've read these two posts over and over, and I just have to ask; Are you for real? Like for really real? Because if you're not trolling, I really don't even know where to begin. And if you are trolling, congratulations, you have broken my poor smooth brain worse than anyone ever has before.

Just in case you're serious, I'm just going to answer everything in a general way.

Co-op means cooperative. If you aren't COOPERATING with your team, you are playing SOLO, and should be in a mission by yourself.

A person running off on their own when playing with a group is basically just a leech. If you're annoyed at helping your team, in co-op mode, you should be playing SOLO.

Fashion-framing and making friendos is socializing and has zero to do with actually playing missions. And based on everything else you said in your posts, the value you place on someone offering help has more to do with their ability to just exist in a mission with you so you can reap the benefits of co-op without actually being a team player.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Your second post.... Do you really not know how spawns work in this game? I'm assuming your answer is no, because it is a fact that when players run off all over the place it messes with the spawning AI.

From the wiki: "If players are all in one area, all enemies will spawn around them and move in, maximizing resource collection and shared experience. If players spread out across the entire map enemies will spawn in chunks and often attack one player (usually the host) more, with more than half of the enemies spawning to attack that player more often.".

I can forgive people not knowing about this, as it's never explicitly stated in game, but, and I thought this should go without saying, if you're playing CO-OP, you should be sticking together with your team.

[AntifreezeUnder0]

Requiting squad for specific farming is always an option. Rest is price we pay for random public matchmaking

Like in survival mission your job as squad is to survive, how its up to you.

For me survival missions in sp is more enjoyable solo than in squads because its 2 extremes always-

  1) either it walking simulator because  of meta users who also just breezes through map different directions leaving nothing to kill for others, yet  somehow ones who dont have anything to kill get called the leech.... while meta users are those who take enemy spawns others generated for beeing there(exception for sp, there was special circumstances where again solo is better density than in full squad)- same logic. 

   2) I run off killing enemies constatly moving where they are and eventualy end up gathering good enough of number killed(highest of squad by large margin), but then its someone else who gets to enjoy walking simulator.. and here reading again the one who does all killing also somehow is a leech because didnt read mind of random person doing public mach to do effective camping simulator in the name of better loots.

 

 

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

2 hours ago, sh00chu said:

Co-op means cooperative. If you aren't COOPERATING

Being grouped and cooperating are 2 different things... only goal survival wants from players is getting kills quickly and not dying, you dont have to be grouped 24/7 to help increase your teams kill rate. They still are able to help you.

(Im hoping i dont have to go into the difference between cooperation and being grouped up. And hope youre trolling about that honestly)

Even if you want grouping moments 

"Hey bro i got a boss chasing me, im coming to you"

"hey bro i need energy, drop me some energy pizzas"

"You see any argon crystals mark them for me!"

No need to force us to glued butt to butt the whole game.

2 hours ago, sh00chu said:

I'm assuming your answer is no, because it is a fact that when players run off all over the place it messes with the spawning AI.

Why would you assume that when i literally made this post addressing that (i bolded specfic parts to help jog your memory)

6 hours ago, (PSN)Frost_Nephilim said:

Idk how complicated this is to change but im hoping its not too hard because its EXTREMELY annoying. People are always complaing about their kills be stolen, so in survival, bad players will sometimes choose run off to try and fight enemies on their own so that we cant obliterate all the enemies. Nothing in the game tells them though, that they can stop enemy spawns in every area of the map except where they are by doing this if they arent killing fast enough.

I just got out of a Steelpath Survival game where a player successfully kept us all from getting full reactant and successfully made us keep having to tediously activate life support capsules because getting the drops were impossible to get with him killing so slowly and hogging all the enemies.

Solution

 In natural circumstances where enemies are not affected by a taunting ability, no more than 10 enemies will target a player in a 4 player match at a time. So if people want to run off crying because they cant get a kill, they can do so without forcing us to have to chase them down and no one loses from this sort of gameplay

Its a survival mission afterall, not defense. Seems reasonable to not make grouping a requirement. 

Thoughts?

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

1 hour ago, AntifreezeUnder0 said:

Requiting squad for specific farming is always an option

Bruh...

5 hours ago, (PSN)Frost_Nephilim said:

Before you read!

If youre a person who likes/wants to say "just recruit" i ask kindly that you leave this post and do not comment. This option is a very obvious choice that everyone and their dog knows they can do, therefore its extremely unconstructive and silly to point out, just as silly as saying "the floor is made of floor". Thank you in advance! 🥰

 

1 hour ago, AntifreezeUnder0 said:

Rest is price we pay for random public matchmaking

The only price a person should pay for random public match making is the game feeling much the same as it would solo, or suffeting minor inconviences like a max range limbo it defense is sorta acceptable because you still can complete the mission objective. The mission cant be played exactly as you like it, its public, thats fair game.

Mechanics that stop you from playing the game is a different story. Like limbo stopping all players from using their weapons, thats toxic and lazy game design for public play. I care about the quality of public play as it allows players to jump in missions without tedious recruiting, players should not be allowed to completely break the game like what i just experienced in survival, especially if its not reportable.

If you dont care, theres the door, have fun in recruit chat. Price to pay for lazy game design

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

1 hour ago, AntifreezeUnder0 said:

1) either it walking simulator because  of meta users who also just breezes through map different directions leaving nothing to kill for others, yet  somehow ones who dont have anything to kill get called the leech.... while meta users are those who take enemy spawns others generated for beeing there(exception for sp, there was special circumstances where again solo is better density than in full squad)- same logic. 

My idea fixes this issue

1 hour ago, AntifreezeUnder0 said:

 2) I run off killing enemies constatly moving where they are and eventualy end up gathering good enough of number killed(highest of squad by large margin), but then its someone else who gets to enjoy walking simulator.. and here reading again the one who does all killing also somehow is a leech because didnt read mind of random person doing public mach to do effective camping simulator in the name of better loots.

Not this 1 but i dont experience this issue much. I laugh if someone demands i camp. I can understand if im breaking the game for you like stoppin enemy spawns but you can move to collect resources. You choosing not to is all on you, this isnt a camp/farm only mission, thats what a fine price to pay for public looks like. As long as the game is still playable and im not taking away your weapons or something, everything else is fair game

[AntifreezeUnder0]

21 minutes ago, (PSN)Frost_Nephilim said:

Mechanics that stop you from playing the game is a different story. Like limbo stopping all players from using their weapons, thats toxic and lazy game design for public play. I care about the quality of public play as it allows players to jump in missions without tedious recruiting, players should not be allowed to completely break the game like what i just experienced in survival, especially if its not reportable.

If you dont care, theres the door, have fun in recruit chat. Price to pay for lazy game design

Survival missions shouldnt be camping simulator, but high lvl enemies on get go would indirectly force more packed playstyle since on swarming out it would mean you either are the one capable of killing all or best suited for the current mission to kill all faster than rest.

But Thats what recruit chat is for, get the squad for specific reason to avoid all the bs public runs may give. If one is too lazy to gather squad for specific farming, its his own fault for joining random public squad and demand them magicaly do as one say or thinks.

One thing will lead to another, if people magicaly start doing what one imagined, then complains be that they did not stay long enough in mission, didnt bring the right load out . Pretty much can turn to same unfriendly manner as in eidolon hunts. Either you have the min max build or get lost. And that is surely not what this game i about.

 

But sadly more and more weapons and frame loadouts are most enjoyable when you play stuff solo.  

   a) because noone to blame if things go south

   b) Can endorse the funny interactions with your selfmade or just copied build

   c) Take a stug and mow everything down, having time to do that(since none can steal kills in time stug takes to kill).

For me I play grendel always , in defense missions you either kill them fast, else when they near enough ill eat them. In survival its even worse i have my own 40 enemies in pocket and can run arround uwuing, that is if someone dont run room clear build, then i even cant have 1 enemy to eat... 

  I just wish game had higher lvl enemies on get go. So you realy had to be well prepared for wandering arroun, but at same time capable of handling mission if happen to be running solo public, or people joined happened to get bad end of connection quality with you or you with them.

[sh00chu]

I'm just gonna take the 'L' on this one. I think the way you want things to work in this game sucks. The real irony here is that I'm mostly a solo player, so it doesn't really affect me all that much either way. But on the rare occasion when I do play in a group, I will always prefer to play as a team, as opposed to four solo players who just happened to be doing the same thing. 

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

1 minute ago, AntifreezeUnder0 said:

Survival missions shouldnt be camping simulator

I agree

2 minutes ago, AntifreezeUnder0 said:

but high lvl enemies on get go would indirectly force more packed playstyle since on swarming out it would mean you either are the one capable of killing all or best suited for the current mission to kill all faster than rest

I think i agree? Most frames should do just fine solo for even a 60 minute SP survival run, but benefit a bit more from working together. I dont think forced is the right word. Helpful yeah, not forced.

4 minutes ago, AntifreezeUnder0 said:

But Thats what recruit chat is for

Thats subjective. Just cause recruit chat exist doesnt mean you cant remove game breaking "bs" from public play. There are games that exist in co-op without allowing players to do this, and even if it does allow it like Call of Duty hardmode allowimg friendly fire, they still punish you if youre being too stupid or trolling as its unfair to other players.

Which is why i didnt want this brought up here. Its a foolish argument of subjectivety. You think its okay for quick matchmakimg to pair you with players who are allowed to break your game, i think it isnt and arguably so does DE. Its up to DE to decide on such matters 

Or you can go argue about it in another post 👋

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

50 minutes ago, sh00chu said:

I'm just gonna take the 'L' on this one. I think the way you want things to work in this game sucks. The real irony here is that I'm mostly a solo player, so it doesn't really affect me all that much either way. But on the rare occasion when I do play in a group, I will always prefer to play as a team, as opposed to four solo players who just happened to be doing the same thing. 

That is quite ironic that you find solo play more attractive than teamplay, and yet dont value the fact that you dont have to rely heavily on other players.

When i play with teams, the only thing i want from them is company and to make the enviornment feel more lively. Especially in pubs which i play almost 24/7. Which is why i loved warframe for so long, i rarely ever have to heavily rely on other players for my own enjoyment of the game, we all just help each other and it makes the warframe community so kind. Only time i experienced toxicity was during raids, the pressure on teamplay was REAL. Had people yelling "MR 20 ONLY" as its too annoying dealing with anyone else, very non new player friendly, and if you werent smart enough to handle simple task oh boy! Was the only times i witnessed friendships break in warframe 😂😂😂. "Just stand on the pressure plate!!! You wasted 2hours of my time!!! 😡" As opposed to "i got it with my operator, but if you want to do it faster try harder staying here next run. But its okay, i got it this time 😁"

I like the latter gameplay. Warframe's normal gameplay. Other players help but i can still control whether or not we fail if im strong enough

How youve been playing the game this long and not value that too, the way warframe already is, i dont have a single clue. Especially granted you play solo. Its odd indeed

[(PSN)FunyFlyBoy]

I think a better fix would be to force spawns to force around the larger group of Tenno within Affinity range of each other. That why people bum rushing elsewhere to get kills will see it's a ghost town, track back to the largest group, see hordes of enemies, and stick around. 

The issue of spawning only 10 enemies per person is this still randomizes who would get the reactant spawns. You'll still run into the same problem of reactant being too spread out causing you to not crack open your relic. It also makes tactical sense to toss the largest of your host of clones & crewmen at the larger threat of Tenno, that being the ones fighting together than the lone wolf away from the pack. 

Also, to spice it up against the loners, make the Gustrag Three, Zanuka, Stalker spawn more frequently with a higher level than current spawns when a Tenno runs off on their own. On a Lv50 mission and you run off on your own? Lv90 invasion boss to smack you up a bit. Lv120 SP enemies? Lv200 invasion boss. Get them to prove they are Billy Badass.

"You thought you were Billy Badass until you ran into Billy Badass. Billy Badass whupped dat @$$ and you learned, 'I'm good at math!'"

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

1 hour ago, (PSN)FunyFlyBoy said:

The issue of spawning only 10 enemies per person is this still randomizes who would get the reactant spawns

Well DE can just improve reactant drops, thats not a complicated issue

1 hour ago, (PSN)FunyFlyBoy said:

I think a better fix would be to force spawns to force around the larger group of Tenno within Affinity range of each other. That why people bum rushing elsewhere to get kills will see it's a ghost town, track back to the largest group, see hordes of enemies, and stick around...

...

...It also makes tactical sense to toss the largest of your host of clones & crewmen at the larger threat of Tenno, that being the ones fighting together than the lone wolf away from the pack. 

Also, to spice it up against the loners, make the Gustrag Three, Zanuka, Stalker spawn more frequently with a higher level than current spawns when a Tenno runs off on their own. On a Lv50 mission and you run off on your own? Lv90 invasion boss to smack you up a bit. Lv120 SP enemies? Lv200 invasion boss. Get them to prove they are Billy Badass.

"You thought you were Billy Badass until you ran into Billy Badass. Billy Badass whupped dat @$$ and you learned, 'I'm good at math!'"

I can get behind this though, its extremely rare that ill ever see 2 players working together to seperate from the team. Sounds effective and wont change the current game's state as much, it only removes a negative

I like the idea. Especially the idea of sending highly trained assassins or simply a few high level enemies after those who try to seperate. That way they dont take the whole map with them and still have something to face off against if they cry about kills being taken. 

Smart, ill add it up top

[(PSN)FunyFlyBoy]

1 hour ago, (PSN)Frost_Nephilim said:

I like the idea. Especially the idea of sending highly trained assassins or simply a few high level enemies after those who try to seperate. That way they dont take the whole map with them and still have something to face off against if they cry about kills being taken. 

It is called "Survival" make it so. Actually attempt to kill us. You could even put a Penalty to it such as losing time on Oxygen. Put the fear of failure into those who just roam around. Yeah, there will be those who will take time to catch on but between Veterans telling them off, and their own failures, they will catch on eventually, curbing this lone wolf nonsense to a degree. 

And true, Reactant drop rate could be increased to curb the spread of Corrupted to a degree.