Late join to Void Fissure. Not enough reactant (out of player control). EZ Solution.

[PhreazerBurn]

Late join to Void Fissure. Not enough reactant (out of player control). EZ Solution.

Give players who join in after mission starts the number of reactant that the player with the most already has.

Problem solved. Hooray! Hopefully next hotfix. /smile

[Hobie-wan]

I know I love showing up at 4 PM and getting paid for all the work everyone else did all day before I got there.

Obviously the situation sucks, but maybe you can do things on your end to speed up loading if that's the issue all of the time. If you're joining random pubs that are rushing so fast that they won't wait for the last person to get 10 or the mission is 'over' and has decided to stop spawning enemies, then you haven't lost that much time. Form a squad in recruiting, just one for random relic farming. If everyone's on board for that, they're sure to wait a few extra seconds to make sure everyone gets traces so there's more choice. Or stop picking captures for pubs since those are more likely to finish the quickest. Exterminate will still be pretty fast, but should be slow enough for everyone to load in time.

[Nekomian]

Tbh they should increase the reactant spawns a bit or try to accommodate for late joins if they're going to let them occur so late - my load times are only like 5 - 10s and I still have this happen in certain mission types, most notably defense or interception. If from the user's perspective all I did was want public relic runs and I got into a mission 2 mins (or 2 waves) in it should try to catch me up rather than waste my time by not physically letting me have access to enough reactant. I don't run relic runs that much anymore, but it's frustrating when I do to have the game only give me 9 out of 10 reactant.

[Pakaku]

23 minutes ago, Hobie-wan said:

I know I love showing up at 4 PM and getting paid for all the work everyone else did all day before I got there.

If I join a mission, not knowing how far into it everyone is, and have no chance of catching up, that is poor game design

[Hobie-wan]

6 minutes ago, Pakaku said:

If I join a mission, not knowing how far into it everyone is, and have no chance of catching up, that is poor game design

If someone takes a long time to load or connect (becasue of internet hiccups), what would you have DE do? Making everyone else wait in a paused state so that nobody gets ahead isn't good. Dropping the person who's having trouble over and over is no good. DE can't predict how long a player will take to load in and get connected. Different tilesets and mission types are different and the internet is variable on top of whatever else the player might have going on their end from day to day.

Since there's no magical way to snap one's fingers and make everyone's system instantly load and be a perfect connection like they're sitting in the same room, the best things to do are to make sure everything has been done to help load faster (with storage type and not having a machine with a ton running in the background) and that everyone is on the same page for a mission where the fast loaders aren't finishing the mission in 1 minute.

[Pakaku]

18 minutes ago, Hobie-wan said:

DE can't predict how long a player will take to load in and get connected.

Right, and this is what makes it such bad game design. You don't normally fail a mission just because you joined late. You always join a mission at the progression rate it's at. If the void relic side of a mission was designed better, players could join and not get hit with unexpected failures just because they took too long to enter.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Pakaku

[trst]

I'd say that the mission lockout should consider the current Reactant count instead.

One player already got half of their Reactant? Don't let more players join in on the mission.

 

Otherwise the inevitable is going to happen of players trying to game the system by repeatedly abandoning Fissures until they join one near/at completion. There's even precedent of this with players doing the exact same looking for players running the newest Relics.

[nslay]

I really don't see this very often. Players are usually so considerate in this game that they will usually wait for everyone to have 10 reactant... even in blazing fast Capture missions! It even often goes without saying, but dropping a line in chat for those other times works too.

But... you can equip new or vaulted relics that players really care about and then use that as leverage to convince everyone to let you collect 10 reactant. There is a selfish element to this: Your reward is everyone else's reward too. That should incentivize everyone to want everyone else to crack their relics for maximum choice of rewards.

[PollexMessier]

20 hours ago, Hobie-wan said:

If someone takes a long time to load or connect (becasue of internet hiccups), what would you have DE do? Making everyone else wait in a paused state so that nobody gets ahead isn't good. Dropping the person who's having trouble over and over is no good. DE can't predict how long a player will take to load in and get connected. Different tilesets and mission types are different and the internet is variable on top of whatever else the player might have going on their end from day to day.

Since there's no magical way to snap one's fingers and make everyone's system instantly load and be a perfect connection like they're sitting in the same room, the best things to do are to make sure everything has been done to help load faster (with storage type and not having a machine with a ton running in the background) and that everyone is on the same page for a mission where the fast loaders aren't finishing the mission in 1 minute.

That's not how this issue works at all. Players are able to join into a mission a considerable amount of time after it started. It's not the player who joined's fault if the game puts them into to match that's already been under way for over a minute. Load times don't affect that. Most of the time, it's the player's already in the mission's fault for not waiting for the team to fill out before blasting through the mission.

The game can't just prevent players from joining after the mission's started or public matchmaking would be really frustrating cus teams would rarely be filled. It's not a problem that can be solved by getting better hardware, when the game is dumping you into a mission that started minutes before you even selected it. And the game can't stop doing that. So it should be fixed some other way. Getting the amount of reactant the highest reactant count player has upon loading in is probably the best way to solve this issue. Is it even affecting your gameplay at all? No. You'll be the prick already halfway to extraction before the last person's even been matched to your squad, killed every enemy in your path, and got 90% damage in the end stats anyways. So why does it matter to you? Actually, it SHOULD matter to you, but in the opposite way you're treating it. If players that join mid mission get their reactant faster, you can finish the mission faster and not lose out on getting a potentially better drop from their relic because they couldn't collect enough reactant. Grow some braincells. Op's suggestion is a net positive for everyone, including your spoiled rotten rear end (God I hate the no profanity rule in ToS).

Edited September 8, 2023 by PollexMessier

[PollexMessier]

5 hours ago, trst said:

I'd say that the mission lockout should consider the current Reactant count instead.

One player already got half of their Reactant? Don't let more players join in on the mission.

That's certainly a more... DE friendly suggestion. But that's not very fair in the situation where at least one player wants to wait for the team to fill out, and another rushes into the first room, nukes, and instantly pulls 5 reactant which is not that uncommon an occurrence. Or just blasts halfway through the map in 10 seconds to the same effect. With your suggestion, that player has just dashed the rewards of the mission for everyone else present by being an impatient, inconsiderate prick.

5 hours ago, trst said:

Otherwise the inevitable is going to happen of players trying to game the system by repeatedly abandoning Fissures until they join one near/at completion. There's even precedent of this with players doing the exact same looking for players running the newest Relics.

When refreshing a mission 3 times takes about as long as just completing a capture, exterminate, sabotage, exct.... no, not really. Why would you sit there rapid firing loading screens and wasting your time when you could just... do the <1 minute mission? This would only apply to longer missions and again, why would you even join missions you know are going to be taking longer like that when you could join the faster ones or... go make progress on any of the other 500 ways you can in the game while you wait for a fast fissure to show up. Players are doing this already. I'm sure you've noticed it takes way longer to fill up a squad for a fissure mission type that'll take 5+ minutes compared to other missions, if you ever even bothered to try running one. Nobody likes the longer mission types for fissures. Which is the only mission type this sort of in progress mission hunting would take place on because the others are just too short to bother.

[(XBOX)K1jker]

Isn't it like this in railjack basically? 🤔 I always thought it's nice not to fail there despite joining an ongoing lobby.

[_Anise_]

Quote

I know I love showing up at 4 PM and getting paid for all the work everyone else did all day before I got there.

the only issue with that argument is you can't control when exactly you will 'show up' so the fix works,

Edited September 8, 2023 by _Anise_

[sunderthefirmament]

10 hours ago, Hobie-wan said:

 

I know I love showing up at 4 PM and getting paid for all the work everyone else did all day before I got there.

 

I know I love still getting 4 relic reward choices in a speedrun random capture/exterminate even when crossplay has decided to match me with someone on an ancient console, gasping and wheezing to keep up.  It would be better than the current system where they turn my 1.5-2 minute capture into a 4 minute ordeal and still don’t find enough reactant. 
 

Not everyone can afford to upgrade. Not everyone wants to sit in recruit chat when they could just be running random fast fissures. 

[Hobie-wan]

5 hours ago, PollexMessier said:

including your spoiled rotten rear end

Excuse me? You're making a lot of assumptions here. My machine is older, but I keep it running well and don't have a ton of stuff going on in the background when I'm gaming. Also, I want everyone to get their reactant so we all have more choices. I always check and wait that everyone has 10 before blazing to the exit and don't just nuke as fast as possible before enemies get converted on defense missions. Since the OP is apparently having issues often enough for it to bother them, I made suggestions. But sure, call me spoiled.

11 hours ago, Pakaku said:

If I join a mission, not knowing how far into it everyone is, and have no chance of catching up, that is poor game design

 

10 hours ago, Pakaku said:

Right, and this is what makes it such bad game design. You don't normally fail a mission just because you joined late. You always join a mission at the progression rate it's at. If the void relic side of a mission was designed better, players could join and not get hit with unexpected failures just because they took too long to enter.

Just giving everyone a participation score for showing up at the last minute instead of getting to play the game isn't wonderful, but making everyone wait until everyone is fully loaded in isn't good either.

10 hours ago, trst said:

I'd say that the mission lockout should consider the current Reactant count instead.

One player already got half of their Reactant? Don't let more players join in on the mission.

I'd imagine it does, since there's stuff already in place that prevents you accepting an invite to a mission if objectives have already gotten far enough along. If not, I agree. But maybe they need to tighten the limit if it is there already.

1 hour ago, _Anise_ said:

the only issue with that argument is you can't control when exactly you will 'show up'

Fair enough on that one. Bad analogy.

1 hour ago, sunderthefirmament said:

Not everyone can afford to upgrade. Not everyone wants to sit in recruit chat when they could just be running random fast fissures.

I can't afford to upgrade eight now either. But I keep my machine running clean so it isn't a problem. I've seen people pulling relic farming groups together in recruiting often, but maybe I was just looking at the right time. However that's why I suggested choosing an exterminate if someone just wanted to run pubs. Only slightly longer, but enough it should help ensure there are more chances for traces if it's taking a while to pop into the mission.

[SneakyErvin]

2 hours ago, Hobie-wan said:

My machine is older, but I keep it running well and don't have a ton of stuff going on in the background when I'm gaming.

And the matchmaker doesnt give one flying rats ass about that. The problem is on DEs end due to the matchmaker, there is no safe way to circumvent it due to how random connectivity can be due to the matchmaker when finding a host. Because we cannot do anything about what kinda of crap the host is running or what connection he has etc. So the fix proposed would be a very good solution for a game such as WF with a matchmaker as S#&amp;&#036;ty as the one we are stuck with.

We simply shouldnt be punished for something lacking on DEs end. Since lets face it everyone in a relic run gets punished if a single person ends up with a poor matchmaking result. One less relic for 3 people and no relic at all for the guy with getting screwed by the matchmaker.

[(XBOX)Hellsteeth30]

Pub life yo.

I needn't detail what usually happens in survivals, everybody going as far away from everybody else as possible.

For my part platforming is not a strong area of mine, plus the map design is distasteful.  So I end up lagging behind due to getting lost or platform fails, Kuva Fortress is especially bad for that.

So if it isn't defence I'm not pubbing it for relics.

[0_The_F00l]

This happens very rarely ,and only in low level "quick" missions like capture and exterminate , usually populated by thermal titanias.

I do agree it's a problem , but it's a problem more on the lines of allowing players to complete the mission faster than a player can load in.

[JohnMorte]

It will never get fixed, because until a certain part of the playerbase stops asserting that lack of reactant spawning is a skill issue as opposed to an actual in-game bug, DE will never feel pressured to repair an obvious bug.

You should have seen the pushback when I brought this (Reactant issues) up years ago. It was completely baffling how hard people dig in their heels on this topic. Those players felt like they were supremely qualified to speak on the issue because they couldn't see past their own egos.

All I can say is to stop blaming the players and just fix it and be done with it.

  

1 hour ago, (XBOX)Hellsteeth30 said:

Pub life yo.

I needn't detail what usually happens in survivals, everybody going as far away from everybody else as possible.

For my part platforming is not a strong area of mine, plus the map design is distasteful.  So I end up lagging behind due to getting lost or platform fails, Kuva Fortress is especially bad for that.

So if it isn't defence I'm not pubbing it for relics.

I played an Axi pub defense yesterday, just to see if reactant was still broken. It was. Don't be fooled into thinking it's just exclusive to quicker gametypes.

Edited September 8, 2023 by JohnMorte
didnt finish thought

[Nekomian]

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

The problem is on DEs end due to the matchmaker, there is no safe way to circumvent it due to how random connectivity can be due to the matchmaker when finding a host.

To be fair, I'm not sure what the matchmaker could even do here - unless we start classifying what systems "can" and "can't" host based on a benchmark or specs, there's always gonna be a system that shouldn't be hosting but is. That alone isn't even sufficient either, as individual networks can have latency spikes or really bad jitter that isn't detected until prolonged times, so now that connection to host takes 20s instead of 5s because it keeps dropping packets for the loadouts the client needs to load resources for to join, or the client takes forever to load the resources in a situation where their system is less than ideal.

For this particular reactant issue, they could either make the join times tighter (meaning no "late" joins but potentially less people in the mission) or increase reactant spawns significantly per join (meaning more chances to get more reactant, and quicker). Not catching the late join up seems to annoy people (joining a mission and not getting a reward cause the game said "nah, no more reactant" sucks), and catching them up to max amount seems to also annoy people (being considered a "free ride" to people who collected the reactant in this case), so the only compromise I can tell would be to make it easier for late joins to catch up by increasing the spawns for them.

[PublikDomain]

All loot, reactant included, should just be globally picked up like it is in Railjack. That solves reactant problems, but also the problems that come from people splitting up in endless modes, problems with missing out on loot because someone didn't mark it, problems with having loot despawn, having to backtrack, less random garbage to have to track and replicate over the network, and so on.

[Hexerin]

34 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

All loot, reactant included, should just be globally picked up like it is in Railjack. That solves reactant problems, but also the problems that come from people splitting up in endless modes, problems with missing out on loot because someone didn't mark it, problems with having loot despawn, having to backtrack, less random garbage to have to track and replicate over the network, and so on.

This is the correct take.

[(XBOX)Hellsteeth30]

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

All loot, reactant included, should just be globally picked up like it is in Railjack. That solves reactant problems, but also the problems that come from people splitting up in endless modes, problems with missing out on loot because someone didn't mark it, problems with having loot despawn, having to backtrack, less random garbage to have to track and replicate over the network, and so on.

This, this right here.

Certainly help in Arbis too, where the penalty for charging off to grab the Vitus can end up with a perma-down.  Nobody really bothers chasing after the point thingies, and then the deadee quits.

[Hexerin]

1 minute ago, (XBOX)Hellsteeth30 said:

Nobody really bothers chasing after the point thingies, and then the deadee quits.

I chase the revival tokens. However, in my three runs of Arbitrations, I've only had a squadmate die once. When I was about halfway through the token collection, they said in chat (paraphrased) "Hey man, can I get a revive?" I let them know what I was doing (collecting the tokens so I could revive them), and their response told me that they simply weren't even aware of the revive mechanic being altered in Arbitrations.

Which if you think about it, it's no wonder they didn't know. It's not explained anywhere ingame, at least not that I'm aware of. The only reason I was aware, is because I'm a habitual wiki junkie and so I read up the entire wiki page about the mode before hitting it up.

[(XBOX)Lord ChibiVR]

18 hours ago, trst said:

 

 

Otherwise the inevitable is going to happen of players trying to game the system by repeatedly abandoning Fissures until they join one near/at completion. There's even precedent of this with players doing the exact same looking for players running the newest Relics.

That wouldn't even work because those players have maxed out thermal sunder quintuple archon shard Titania builds for speed running so they could complete missions before they even load into a second game.

Edited September 8, 2023 by (XBOX)Upl0rdYT

[(XBOX)Hellsteeth30]

2 hours ago, Hexerin said:

I chase the revival tokens. However, in my three runs of Arbitrations, I've only had a squadmate die once. When I was about halfway through the token collection, they said in chat (paraphrased) "Hey man, can I get a revive?" I let them know what I was doing (collecting the tokens so I could revive them), and their response told me that they simply weren't even aware of the revive mechanic being altered in Arbitrations.

Which if you think about it, it's no wonder they didn't know. It's not explained anywhere ingame, at least not that I'm aware of. The only reason I was aware, is because I'm a habitual wiki junkie and so I read up the entire wiki page about the mode before hitting it up.

The only reason I know is because I'm fairly rigourous about looking stuff up.

You are entirely correct though, it doesn't tell you what they are or the rules.  They just kind of appear close to and after completing normal star chart.

Not to mention the points are kinda small, just a pallette swap of the index token.  Problematic on infested maps as they're tight and full of clutter.  Infested being a big squad wipe threat due to toxin