Give an option to choose whether or not to join a squad with console host

[ExplosiveCurry]

It's pretty easy to tell that if you join a game with a console player as host compared to a PC player host that the console host will have reduced spawns. There are also longer loading times and transitions if there are any. Sure there are system limitations but to get more bang per mission especially out of survival missions to get more life support and potentially more acolyte spawns. As for defense the same can be said to hasten up the rounds

I don't mind playing with console players but when it comes down to certain missions I would much rather take a PC player hosting

[(XBOX)RaeOvSunshyn]

Clearly a case of "cake and eat it too." Being able to choose which platform you join with at any given time kinda defeats the point of cross-play, no?

I'm not a fan of cross-play for reasons beyond load times and spawn rates but, as a next-gen Xbox user with ridiculously good 'net, I am so happy when it's a PC host.

[sunderthefirmament]

15 minutes ago, (XBOX)RaeOvSunshyn said:

Clearly a case of "cake and eat it too." Being able to choose which platform you join with at any given time kinda defeats the point of cross-play, no?

How so?  The point of crossplay is arguably just playing with other players across systems/platforms.  I don't see how letting us prefer/pick PC hosts would compromise that at all.

 

I'm hopeful that when DE implements cross-save they also iterate upon crossplay further.  Hosting preferences are at the top of my wishlist when it comes to crossplay.  Having a console host is often an awful experience.  But turning off crossplay means I might as well be locked in singleplayer forever.

[ExplosiveCurry]

21 minutes ago, (XBOX)RaeOvSunshyn said:

Clearly a case of "cake and eat it too." Being able to choose which platform you join with at any given time kinda defeats the point of cross-play, no?

I'm not a fan of cross-play for reasons beyond load times and spawn rates but, as a next-gen Xbox user with ridiculously good 'net, I am so happy when it's a PC host.

Like I said, I don't mind playing with console players. If I didn't want to I could tick an option that would disable cross-play completely

[Nekomian]

This topic comes up every few weeks and my response is always the same - this is a bad idea due to how it would cause matchmaking pool issues. It further divides users with this toggled on and off, and creates an issue where people "can't find any squads" due to individual config settings. It's arbitrary and unnecessary, especially when there are many users on PC with potato computers that can't handle high spawn rates anyways (F2P model games tend to invite more of this since the barrier to entry is simply download the game).

Simply put - it doesn't really solve the issue here, which is that spawn rates should be consistent across platforms and systems.

[Nanika]

On 2023-08-15 at 10:36 AM, Naroxas44 said:

This topic comes up every few weeks and my response is always the same - this is a bad idea due to how it would cause matchmaking pool issues. It further divides users with this toggled on and off, and creates an issue where people "can't find any squads" due to individual config settings. It's arbitrary and unnecessary, especially when there are many users on PC with potato computers that can't handle high spawn rates anyways (F2P model games tend to invite more of this since the barrier to entry is simply download the game).

Simply put - it doesn't really solve the issue here, which is that spawn rates should be consistent across platforms and systems.

the performance problems, especially when playing with switch hosts, resulting in dropped matches and non-functional abilities, means that they shouldn't be the damn host. if the option is worse matchmaking, so be it. i don't give a damn if the individual player has performance problems due to not being able to handle spawn rates, but when their trash-spec method of play worsens everyone else's experience it needs to stop.
if there were an option to block certain frames (literally only limbo) i'd take that too. Had a limbo do nothing but maintain 100% rift plane uptime in an archon hunt, die, and leave. no clue how he died through my trin bless, but he managed it.

[Nekomian]

1 minute ago, Nanika said:

resulting in dropped matches and non-functional abilities, means that they shouldn't be the damn host. if the option is worse matchmaking, so be it. i don't give a damn if the individual player has performance problems due to not being able to handle spawn rates, but when their trash-spec method of play worsens everyone else's experience it needs to stop.

The problem is though that unless you benchmark a system and quantify its performance / compatibility to "be eligible host", this issue will still persist. A "no console host" toggle does not solve this issue by itself as potato PCs with lacking specs can still be hosts and have these issues, which is mainly what I was addressing from the OP.

I'd prefer they unify things and eliminate performance problems and streamline everything to work across systems regardless of their spec, so the play experience would be exactly the same if you're playing on some supercomputer vs a switch (to be clear - play experience referring to mechanics like spawn rates, ability use, and things that aren't visual like frame rate / graphical fidelity). That's probably way more difficult, but letting players put up artificial blocks against other groups tends to cause a lot of issues.

[Nanika]

Just now, Naroxas44 said:

The problem is though that unless you benchmark a system and quantify its performance / compatibility to "be eligible host", this issue will still persist. A "no console host" toggle does not solve this issue by itself as potato PCs with lacking specs can still be hosts and have these issues, which is mainly what I was addressing from the OP.

I'd prefer they unify things and eliminate performance problems and streamline everything to work across systems regardless of their spec, so the play experience would be exactly the same if you're playing on some supercomputer vs a switch (to be clear - play experience referring to mechanics like spawn rates, ability use, and things that aren't visual like frame rate / graphical fidelity). That's probably way more difficult, but letting players put up artificial blocks against other groups tends to cause a lot of issues.

the benchmarking isn't needed, the specs of the system are readily available. i'd rather have someone on a potato pc hosting over a switch player any day, because frankly unless their pc was bought off the rack 8 years ago their specs are better than the glorified phone that is a switch. the issues rarely happen with even ps4/xbone,  even though these people refuse to learn what a wired connection is.

if someone's specs make the experience worse for everyone when they're hosting, causing not only input delay but rubber banding, force host migration.

i don't disagree that the game needs to be optimized far better. even if it means they get less pretty graphics to allow better performance.