Can we do something about this? (getting effectively denied everything in a mission)

[(PSN)Madurai-Prime]

1 hour ago, sunderthefirmament said:

This is largely true, but DE should still do something about the grief button in the Zariman.  That instant extraction elevator button gives impatient hosts the freedom to, in all likelihood, nullify the rewards and progress of the rest of the team.  I would like to see it replaced with a traditional extraction system for endless modes, or just have it auto-extract everyone.  There's no perfect solution with P2P, but it's an embarrassment that DE has allowed the host migration elevator in the Zariman to persist for as long as it has.

Yea it was implemented due to player feedback, but medallions are group shared now.

And people that requested the early extract were also told to solo or recruit chat as well, because when Zariman dropped, people were spending 10 to 20 minutes looking for medallions in Exterminates so it's understandable.

[Birdframe_Prime]

23 hours ago, VENDOMINUS said:

I played several years ago, and stopped due to playing too much. Back then I can't remember ever having a host migration fail (Around the time wisp came out). Now I'm back and I'm having most of the migrations fail. How has it improved? If anything it has gotten many, many times worse.

As for the question of PTP or dedicated servers, that doesn't have anything to do with this topic. The game already asks for confirmation before you alt-F4 and try to close it with task manager on PC. It's not a stretch, To use that same delay to have the other players evacuated. OFC if the host hard crashes or DCs that's another issues, but what we're talking about here is manually leaving the squad mid mission.

Several years ago we didn't have cross play. There's literally thousands more players online at the same time, working on a different system. It has got better, the players have gotten more diverse and so connections to Warframe Players are shakier by proportion.

And yes, the server question does have to do with this topic. I'm talking about host disconnections.

You're talking about host disconnections.

The only way to prevent Host disconnections in the way you're complaining about is to switch to dedicated servers. That's why it came up.

Purposefully leaving the squad, like through the Cetus tunnel, has all of the same problems as emergency disconnections. Every. Single. One.

So it really doesn't matter the cause, because the Host Migration service has to do the same thing either way. If the players that are left with you in the mission are not capable of Hosting, and neither are you, then it can't save you.

As mentioned, there is a solution, but that solution isn't going to happen. All you can do is wait for the Host Migration to get more reliable.

[(PSN)Unstar]

4 minutes ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Purposefully leaving the squad, like through the Cetus tunnel, has all of the same problems as emergency disconnections. Every. Single. One.

While for the current implementation this is true, the point is that it doesn't have to be (even without dedicated servers).  When a player randomly disconnects because their internet goes out or they turn off their console, yeah, there's nothing Warframe can do but do a host migration and attempt to recover as best it can.  But if a player initiates an in-game action that would have them leave the squad, Warframe has complete control over how and when that happens, or whether it even happens at all.  Thus it's within the power of the devs to do something along the lines of evacuating clients when a host leaves via the Zariman console.  This is already being done in certain mission types like Capture.

The question is not a matter of "can they", because the answer is a clear and definite "yes".  The only question is what the interface of such a system would look like.  And let's be clear: that's a non-trivial problem to solve.  But it's also one that is well within DE's capabilities to solve if they decide it's a worthwhile issue to tackle.

[Birdframe_Prime]

1 minute ago, (PSN)Unstar said:

But if a player initiates an in-game action that would have them leave the squad, Warframe has complete control over how and when that happens, or whether it even happens at all.

How?

I think you're missing a point here; with finite game modes like Capture, where the objective cannot be extended, of course it's a thing.

Things like the Plains, however, are designed to allow players to leave and for the other players to stay without disconnecting, extending their play session beyond that point.

So forcing all players to leave when one leaves is counter to the goal. The goal is, every time, to try and ensure that the players still on the Plains (or everything except Exterminate on the Zariman) can stay in the mission if they're not leaving at the same time.

This is even a thing in Survival, once the first five minutes is done.

I was there for that update. The update was that every time a player wanted to leave, all the other players were forced to, or the player that wanted to leave had to stay. So they introduced the entire function so that players that wanted to leave an Endless game mode could leave.

Thus, evacuating automatically when the Host leaves? Isn't something that DE are going to go back to.

That's why I say that a manual disconnection, an accidental one, or even just using the functional desired way to exit the game early, all have the same problems. And, until Host Migration receives even more love, will continue to have them.

[(PSN)Unstar]

18 minutes ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

How?

Countless ways, but here's a single example: host clicks Zariman console and initiates leaving, which starts a 15 second timer until the host's extraction.  Clients get a notification that the host is leaving and can opt in to extracting alongside them.  Those who don't opt in within the time limit stay, and those who do (including the host) extract.

Don't get too bogged down by the details of that example, but the point is that it is well within DE's power to control how extraction works in any non-external-disconnect scenario, because they control when and how in-game disconnects happens.

Edited June 29, 2023 by (PSN)Unstar
phrasing

[TheReaverOfDarkness]

10 hours ago, stormy505 said:

Oh, that's usually because the first person to load in is the host, so they are usually the one doing the objective and are ahead of others. Take exterminate, for example, if you assume everyone is doing the objective and the host has a fairly solid rate of killing things they have a head start on their teammates and will finish/get the extraction portal before their teammates.

No, in most missions I'm in, everyone starts together. Nobody is ahead of anyone else. Who gets to be host is just whoever happened to be the first one in the group.

[Birdframe_Prime]

17 hours ago, (PSN)Unstar said:

because they control when and how in-game disconnects happens.

Yeah, but that’s not the ‘how’ I asked.

How do they ensure that the remaining players can still be matched together?

You, and the other players in there, don’t even know if you’re capable of hosting the other players.

So you don’t opt in because the others agree to stay, and you lose the connection anyway because none of you are compatible hosts.

This is what I mean when I say that even controlling the ‘when’ and the ‘how’ a host disconnects, you still have all of the exact same problems that you have right now.

[CephalonCarnage]

17 hours ago, TheReaverOfDarkness said:

No, in most missions I'm in, everyone starts together. Nobody is ahead of anyone else. Who gets to be host is just whoever happened to be the first one in the group.

Many times I've been joined to a squad that is in progress. Once I joined a team that completed the objective seconds afterwards. I simply ran to extraction :)

Plenty of times too you all load in together but there's enough lag that the starting screen cannot be skipped. When you do get to play, the rest of the team will be doing the mission.

[(PSN)Unstar]

4 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Yeah, but that’s not the ‘how’ I asked.

How do they ensure that the remaining players can still be matched together?

You, and the other players in there, don’t even know if you’re capable of hosting the other players.

So you don’t opt in because the others agree to stay, and you lose the connection anyway because none of you are compatible hosts.

This is what I mean when I say that even controlling the ‘when’ and the ‘how’ a host disconnects, you still have all of the exact same problems that you have right now.

I can't tell how we're misunderstanding each other, so I'll try to phrase it differently in the hopes that this gets us on the same page:

I'm not saying that there's a way to improve how literal host migrations occur; I'm saying that it is within DE's power to add options that allow players to reduce undesired host migrations.  And that would be helpful because not going through a host migration means you won't experience the problems associated with host migrations.  It does not 100% solve the problem, but it does meaningfully mitigate it compared to the current implementation.

[rodrigerzZ]

Am 28.6.2023 um 18:48 schrieb VENDOMINUS:

So I've been doing bounties in Zeriman and the instant the objective is complete the host leaves party which forces the host migration. Ofc this often fails and I'm left back at town as if the mission never happened, get teleported back to orbiter or return to a broken mission that can't be finished,
This means that the leaver if getting all the rewards for the work the team did, And everyone else is effectively getting punished for trying to finish the mission normally.

I've had this happen about 50% of the time in this scenario.

 

While I can understand the idea that people should be able to leave, considering how often that leads to 3 other people getting shafted seems quite unfair.

If you can't do something about the nullification of the mission due to the failed host migration, You should at least introduce a mechanic to discourage intaquit upon mission completion. Maybe a 50-75% reward decrease for the first 60 sec, after a mission objective is completed and you leave in that interval?

 

 

Even if ppl say that you should get to the exit faster, there is nothing ppl can do when the host quits 5 sec after the objective is completed.

 

 

PS: While I'm writing this I'm stuck in an exterminate mission after said bug/problem and every time I abort it I get placed right back in it. So my Limbo is stuck in limbo (hopefully the task manager will help).

it's crazy that they STILL haven't fixed that...... LOOOOOOOOOOOOL

actually not funny, but very sad!

and many hosts intentionally run to exit and click the button. hopefully the goal should be clear...

[xcrimsonlegendx]

Been dealing with that in the circuit too, finally get a good loadout but host decides to quit on wave 2. Get migration, lose your decree for the round and often times have to deal with some crippling bug afterwards like being stuck in operator or unable to play in one way or another.

[Birdframe_Prime]

15 hours ago, (PSN)Unstar said:

I'm saying that it is within DE's power to add options that allow players to reduce undesired host migrations.

And?

The way that we're misunderstanding each other is that I'm asking you the following question:

When the problem exists whether you have options or not, and will occur whether you have options or not, what is the point of adding more options?

Wouldn't the Dev time be better spent on things that stop disconnections from causing as much loss of progress instead? That way if Host Migration fails to reconnect you, it can at least mean you only wasted the last three minutes instead of forty.

Basically; devoting time to giving players more security on disconnect would solve the problem better than giving them an option to disconnect with the Host which can, and does, still fail if you leave other players behind that have to be disconnected from the Host at the same time as you do, and doesn't even matter if players don't opt to leave with the Host.

What would more options do other than cause even more frustration when those options are faced with exactly. the same. problems. as not having those options?

[(PSN)Unstar]

7 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

When the problem exists whether you have options or not, and will occur whether you have options or not, what is the point of adding more options?

Wouldn't the Dev time be better spent on things that stop disconnections from causing as much loss of progress instead?

Ah, when you frame it like that, I better understand where you're coming from. Thank you for that.  These are good questions, and I have some answers for them.

 

7 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

When the problem exists whether you have options or not, and will occur whether you have options or not, what is the point of adding more options?

The problem will exist either way, but with one way it will happen less frequently and thus the magnitude of the overall problem will decrease, even though it won't be entirely snuffed out.  This is similar to how a single event or initiative won't be enough to entirely solve the problem of world hunger, but it will help some people some of the time and meaningfully improve lives.  In short, making a change that partially addresses a problem yields better results than doing nothing.

You also ask the related question:

8 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

What would more options do other than cause even more frustration when those options are faced with exactly. the same. problems. as not having those options?

In all honesty I'm a bit confused about why you think this, and it makes me wonder if you might be misunderstanding what I'm proposing.  A player who opts-in to this proposed option to extract with the host does not experience the exact same problems; they do not experience a host migration, nor any of the problems that can be associated with it.  Thus, instead of host migrations being forced on the player, each player is given the choice of whether it is worth it to them to take the risk of a host migration.  This will not make a botched host migration feel any less terrible, but it will give players an option to avoid botched host migrations by avoiding this specific kind of host migrations entirely.  That improves the experience of anyone who chooses to avoid the host migration.

But let's get to your best and juiciest question, which has an important bearing on these previous two questions...

 

7 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Wouldn't the Dev time be better spent on things that stop disconnections from causing as much loss of progress instead?

I personally don't have enough information to truly answer this, but my best guess is "no".  The reason is because when you're dealing with code, some problems are more difficult and time-consuming than others, frequently to exponential degrees.  Warframe has been around for a decade, and throughout all that time, issues with host migrations have yet to be entirely solved, despite being a very obvious and impactful problem for players.  If this were an easy problem to solve, it would have been done long ago, so a decade without fixes suggests that this is a very complex and difficult problem, one that to this day DE has not been able to justify leveraging the required developer-hours to solve (or perhaps they have leveraged those hours, and even then the solution eludes them).  But on the flip side, implementing something like a timer and asking networked players to choose one of two options is pretty simple to implement; in fact, DE already has multiple versions of this tech implemented successfully in a variety of places in Warframe.  I would hypothesizing that implementing this kind of measure would take at least 1000 times less effort than actually addressing the host migration issue directly.  So as a company that has to be economical with the way they distribute their dev time, this kind of measure results in a meaningful improvement to the game for a infinitesimally smaller amount of dev hours.

Let me know if this doesn't gel; I work in tech and have worked in game dev before, so all of this stuff feels second-nature to me and thus I might have forgotten to explain some aspects of this that I take for granted.  As an xkcd comic once said, geologists tend to assume that your average person knows the chemical formula for at least 2 or 3 feldspars, and I have yet to see any profession that can't fall into that same trap!

[CephalonCarnage]

13 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Wouldn't the Dev time be better spent on things that stop disconnections from causing as much loss of progress instead?

I can't see any dev being able to stop a host from disconnecting because the PC crashed or the power was cut, or even if the internet went down. You cannot cater for these catastrophic events, so tyou must deal with the consequences./

The onyl realistic way is to fully migrate the host state to a different player. And the only realistic way that can occur is if the host is blocked while the host migrations occurs. I think DE tries to let the host go away and rebuilds the state from whatever they have around, but as we see, its never good enough. Its still something that would have to happen as a fall-back if the host really did disconnect forcibly but it shouldn't be an issue for the majority of cases when the host extracts and remains connected. Copy that data and then let the host continue, let him see the "host migration" screen as well. That, in itself, might help prevent the need for most host migrations anyway.

[Birdframe_Prime]

14 hours ago, (PSN)Unstar said:

A player who opts-in to this proposed option to extract with the host does not experience the exact same problems; they do not experience a host migration, nor any of the problems that can be associated with it.

I apologise if you're not familiar with this, but they can, and do. The disconnection can cause the same failure as a failed host migration, even if you disconnect at the same time as the host, as long as there are players left in the mission. The Host disconnecting from all three players is the cause, and in some cases the player disconnecting with them can actually exacerbate the problem.

9 hours ago, CephalonCarnage said:

I can't see any dev being able to stop a host from disconnecting because the PC crashed or the power was cut

They can't.

What they can do is stop the progression loss that happens because of it. They have already been testing this function in the open worlds, and with the original Survival 'leave separately' option.

The idea that they had is to optimise the game-state backup process, which allows the Host to communicate more often with the Server, providing shorter and shorter intervals between the individual backups. With that closer monitoring of the game, it provides the basic function that DE wanted in the first place; to allow players to stay in the mission or leave.

With improvements to that system they can eliminate the original problem.

Quick warning, new information to consider that I had to double check because it's about eight years ago: The reason that Host Migration failure counts as a game fail state when you are dropped back to the Orbiter is because DE had a huge problem with code injection, which players abused a lot at the start of the game. The game state used to be saved on all players machines, and the trick was to manually cause a disconnect from the host, inject a different game state on the client machines, and then the Host Migration would read that and take it as real. This could be used to add any amount of resources, mods or similar that dropped in that particular mission. When DE caught on, only the Host stored the game state, which stopped the process dead.

So if the more optimised backups of the game state can be improved enough, then DE can move back to storing the game state on client machines as well, because there will then be such a minimal time between the last state and any new one that a Host disconnect would cause, that setting back the game state to just before the disconnect would not be a problem for the players (at worst a Demolyst might still be running at you instead of already dead), and would also not allow for code injection because it would reject the un-verified state from after the disconnect.

On top of this, the game could then be recognised as not entirely a fail state if the Host Migration failed. Resources could be preserved, mods, rewards and so on, even if mission progress might have to roll back to the start of the last Rotation. DE could allow the grind to be saved, even if they kept the policy of not giving mission success rewards to partial completion.

Basically what I'm saying is that they already have the basic ground-work of the system we actually want, the part that will solve the problems we're actually having when disconnects happen.

Putting dev time into that is by far the thing we actually need.

[(PSN)Unstar]

8 hours ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

23 hours ago, (PSN)Unstar said:

A player who opts-in to this proposed option to extract with the host does not experience the exact same problems; they do not experience a host migration, nor any of the problems that can be associated with it.

I apologise if you're not familiar with this, but they can, and do. The disconnection can cause the same failure as a failed host migration, even if you disconnect at the same time as the host, as long as there are players left in the mission. The Host disconnecting from all three players is the cause, and in some cases the player disconnecting with them can actually exacerbate the problem.

I'm indeed unfamiliar with this!  Are you absolutely sure this is a thing?  In all my years of playing, I can't remember even a single time when I extracted from a mission and lost loot or progress; if I had, I imagine I wouldn't feel so safe each time I do a natural client solo extraction in ESO, the Circuit, Survival, etc.  Conversely, whenever I experience a host migration within a mission, my whole body clenches because a loss of loot/progress is so common.

Is what you're describing an incredibly rare issue?  Does it only happen under certain circumstances?  Assuming this is indeed a phenomenon, I'm trying to figure out why I haven't experienced this...

Edited July 2, 2023 by (PSN)Unstar
clarity

[Birdframe_Prime]

On 2023-07-02 at 6:09 PM, (PSN)Unstar said:

Is what you're describing an incredibly rare issue?  Does it only happen under certain circumstances?

Uncommon, specific circumstances.

Happens when two Clients are left when a Client and Host disconnect together. The Host Migration triggers on the Host disconnecting, but is then suspended when the Client disconnects and has to resume the process when the Client has fully disconnected.

The three potentially negative results of this are: first, the two remaining players have a failed Migration; second, all players apart from the Host experience a failed Host Migration; or third, the two Clients are successfully migrated into a matched/solo instances while the disconnecting Client experiences a full disconnect with the Fail state.

The most frequent occurrence of this is in situations where the Host and disconnecting Client are trying to connect to one of the public server instances, like Cetus, where the Host and the disconnecting Client end up in two different instances due to servers being nearly full.

[VENDOMINUS]

Why do people keep trying to run the thread into the ground by changing the main issue, that is caused by INTENTIONAL leaving, and NOT DISCONNECT.

 

In the past 2 days, I did a few Eidolon hunts and got 3 failed migrations. Now the thing is that I'm already at the exit and waiting to be extracted, as will the rest in about 10 sec, but the host still leaves to save a second for himself. Which causes me and the others to have wasted our time and efforts.

 

If the host can't get the rewards either, then they wouldn't do it. It's as simple as that. The code to make that happen is neither that long or complicated, considering all the systems are already in place.

Just make the leaving have an extra step to delay the host so that migration can happen.

[Birdframe_Prime]

1 hour ago, VENDOMINUS said:

Why do people keep trying to run the thread into the ground by changing the main issue, that is caused by INTENTIONAL leaving, and NOT DISCONNECT.

Because this is a Forum, where your threads fall under discussion from your peers, we talk about things and the subjects can adapt and change.

And because that problem is not one we can solve.

If the Host disconnects, for any reason, not just intentionally, the system has to try to connect you to a new Host or make you the Host. This is what 'Host Migration' is, it's trying to save your game and solve your problem of losing everything.

Host Migration is the extra step. Already. 

DE has set up the Plains and other game modes to specifically allow for a Host to leave and for the other players to continue playing. For some players this works very well, because they're in an area dense with other players and are often playing on machines that are easier to Host a session on. For other players, seemingly yourself included, it doesn't work very well. Either because none of the other members playing with you can Host, or because you're in a situation where you can't be connected to others very well.

1 hour ago, VENDOMINUS said:

If the host can't get the rewards either, then they wouldn't do it.

And you can't just deny a player rewards for a game completed successfully. They got there first and the game allowed them to finish playing, so yes, they get their rewards.

While it's unfortunate for players like yourself, who are finding it problematic, it isn't supposed to be.

The fixes you want are not something that's going to happen quickly, and not something that's going to happen in the way you want them to.

So, as upsetting as that's going to be... You have to accept it.

[SneakyErvin]

I'm honestly not sure how people can defend how this works, nor how DE implemented it in other places after the issues tied to it already in PoE. Sure accidental host migrations are one thing, but allowing people to effectively force it is a massive design blunder that shouldnt be.

For open world and hybrids like Zariman they should either turn it into how missions work, where everyone extracts and leaves, or if they wanna keep the individual extract they should rework host migration for those modes. So instead of an actual host migration, everyone is placed in their own instance, removing or atleast reducing the potential of host migration failures since at that point the host is also the client so to speak. Or at the very least allow us to tick an option that refuses migrations to a new host and instead forces us into a solo session when a host migration triggers.

Personally I've stopped playing public in 99.99% of the cases. There is pretty much a single mode where I enter a public group and that is Archon Hunt Interception. Everything else is ran solo, even if it could have been fun to mess around in Duviri or some other place with others, but I just cannot put up with host migrations.

[VENDOMINUS]

28 minutes ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Because this is a Forum, where your threads fall under discussion from your peers, we talk about things and the subjects can adapt and change.

And that's why I'm both venting and looking for solutions. From my point of view you don't have a solution other than "it is what it is" and you have no wish for it to get better for some reason.

 

28 minutes ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

And because that problem is not one we can solve.

But we could raise awareness and possibly have the devs take a notice. Not think. "it's fine as it it. No need to improve this'.

 

28 minutes ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

If the Host disconnects, for any reason, not just intentionally, the system has to try to connect you to a new Host or make you the Host. This is what 'Host Migration' is, it's trying to save your game and solve your problem of losing everything.

Host Migration is the extra step. Already. 

DE has set up the Plains and other game modes to specifically allow for a Host to leave and for the other players to continue playing. For some players this works very well, because they're in an area dense with other players and are often playing on machines that are easier to Host a session on. For other players, seemingly yourself included, it doesn't work very well. Either because none of the other members playing with you can Host, or because you're in a situation where you can't be connected to others very well.

This shows that the two situations need to have two different solutions, and not just a catch all one that often doesn't work.

28 minutes ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

And you can't just deny a player rewards for a game completed successfully. They got there first and the game allowed them to finish playing, so yes, they get their rewards.

But I'm already at the exit and waiting for him. I can't be any faster. He's already denying the rewards of potentially 3 other people. What you're saying seems to imply that only the RANDOM host has any right to deny others they loot, while KEEPING theirs.

I'm also not given the option to always be host (as far as I know) and still be able to have random people join, but that's an issues for a different topic which is not that likely to be made (even if it should)

 

28 minutes ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

The fixes you want are not something that's going to happen quickly, and not something that's going to happen in the way you want them to.

So, as upsetting as that's going to be... You have to accept it.

I'm not expecting things to happen quickly. This does not mean we should keep quiet about it.. Games that don't getting correct feedback often are left to the roadside. People don't usually want to pay in games where their efforts are ignored. While I know and understand why this is, imagine you're a new player and you randomly loose progress all the time. Would you stick for the game or support it by buying plat?.

 

People who just steer the topic in another direction and then just say "accept it" at the end just sound like they're paid to comment things that make no sense. (I've had similar experience on blizzard forums. It's not something that ever leads to a productive discussion.

 

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by VENDOMINUS

[VENDOMINUS]

13 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Personally I've stopped playing public in 99.99% of the cases. There is pretty much a single mode where I enter a public group and that is Archon Hunt Interception. Everything else is ran solo, even if it could have been fun to mess around in Duviri or some other place with others, but I just cannot put up with host migrations.

Here's an example of a person who already denies himself the more fun aspect of playing WF, which is playing with others and doing cool stuff together.

[Birdframe_Prime]

13 minutes ago, VENDOMINUS said:

But we could raise awareness and possibly have the devs take a notice. Not think. "it's fine as it it. No need to improve this'.

They're aware of it.

There has been a string of consistent patches and bug-fixes to Host Migration over the last ten years, my friend. It's an ongoing system that is currently being massively disrupted by Cross Play being implemented.

There will continue to be problems, and continue to be solutions.

I'm not saying 'no need to improve' I'm saying 'you can stop beating a dead horse'.

14 minutes ago, VENDOMINUS said:

People who just steer the topic in another direction and then just say "accept it" at the end just sound like they're paid to comment things that make no sense.

And this makes you sound certifiable.

The way the conversation went was because you weren't involved, and the other person was asking questions that I had responses to.

The 'accept it' was, again, to say you should stop beating the dead horse again.

Accept that you will have problems, and that the solutions won't be fast, or the solutions you want.

It took DE ten years to get even this far.

Expect more time to be involved before it's even considered 'good'.

[VENDOMINUS]

Think of me as a person who got frustrated over a recurring problem and decided to check the forum. The search I did in the beginning did no show this as a topic, so I made a new one. I have no way of knowing what DE is aware or unaware of. I don't know if the horse is dead or hasn't been born yet.

As for today, after a month of not checking it, I see the last several posts to be in a completely pointless direction that even if someone decided to check how the discussion went, they'd get the wrong idea. That why I just posted to bring the thread back on track.

 

Host migration was way more stable in it's early days. saying :not it's better" it's a bit of a stretch. I understand that the Crossplay is to blame (probably) and understand that things are hard to fix once unexpectedly broken. Finding solutions in a code you've already forgotten how it works, is very hard.

 

I hope you can see my point if view.

Edited July 26, 2023 by VENDOMINUS

[SneakyErvin]

1 hour ago, VENDOMINUS said:

Here's an example of a person who already denies himself the more fun aspect of playing WF, which is playing with others and doing cool stuff together.

Pretty much. I put up with it for a few years but then said feck it somewhere between uhm Railjack and Deimos releasing. Even during the previous Plague Star I went solo, not that a group matters much for speed, but co-op would atleast cut down on material costs per run. But I just couldnt put up with potential host migs. It is one of the flaws that really stand out in WF, and the reason I hope they never add forced co-op content like raids and so on. I mean I love the game, otherwise I wouldnt have played as much as I have and still do, but the matchmaker and connection setup is a bad joke.