Please STOP host from leaving squad

[UNO168]

We ALL know how unstable YOUR game is, host migration is unstable as always.

I just had a exploiter orb fight and the host disconnect/leave squad once the boss is killed, resulting in unsuccessful host migration which makes everyone except host failed the mission, we get nothing.

I DON'T CARE if a client wants to quit his/her game mid-fight it does not impact the connection but as a host they CAN NOT quit/leave squad to force a host migration.

host migration is a LAST RESORT, NOT a functionality of your game.

for 10 years crap like this still happens is unacceptable.

recommendations

• host can not force/trigger host migration once boss/quest obj is killed/completed

[Gio21]

same thing but not on exploiter, did a normal bounty and after it finished host left 

host migration magic happens

and the rest were stuck in a unfinished finished last bounty mission ...
that did not count for my nightwave and had to do it again :|
 

Edited January 13 by Gio21

[Nekomian]

11 hours ago, UNO168 said:

host can not force/trigger host migration once boss/quest obj is killed/completed

This is impossible to enforce, just as an FYI. As a host, the player could have immediate system shutdown, suspend the system, power loss, or internet disconnects, and the game HAS to deal with them by migrating the host to continue the session. I understand you might be suggesting that the host themselves does not have the option in the ESC menu to leave the squad, but that will not prevent migrations from happening and is a small subset of players.

What DE could do instead is prevent host migrations from failing entirely - that is, degrade gracefully. In the event that it cannot migrate, everyone is put in their own sessions to continue their own mission. Clients can just keep track of occasional progress and reward updates separately from host, syncing when necessary, and be able to create their own sessions in the event of failure with no problem. That way no matter what happens, players' progress does not get lost and they don't have to do more frequent mission progress server syncs or anything like that.

[KommandantViy]

On 2024-01-13 at 4:57 PM, Naroxas44 said:

This is impossible to enforce, just as an FYI. As a host, the player could have immediate system shutdown, suspend the system, power loss, or internet disconnects, and the game HAS to deal with them by migrating the host to continue the session. I understand you might be suggesting that the host themselves does not have the option in the ESC menu to leave the squad, but that will not prevent migrations from happening and is a small subset of players.

What DE could do instead is prevent host migrations from failing entirely - that is, degrade gracefully. In the event that it cannot migrate, everyone is put in their own sessions to continue their own mission. Clients can just keep track of occasional progress and reward updates separately from host, syncing when necessary, and be able to create their own sessions in the event of failure with no problem. That way no matter what happens, players' progress does not get lost and they don't have to do more frequent mission progress server syncs or anything like that.

I see this all the time in open worlds, host goes to extraction, too impatient to wait 60s so leaves squad, giving everyone a host migration and chance to lose all their progress. 

It needs to stop, I get that host migrations can happen by accident, but we should eliminate all the intentional migrations. Maybe a 15 minute lockout from new matchmaking after leaving a squad mid mission while host, enough to make people realize that 60s extraction is shorter wait than 15 minutes, while also not massively inconveniencing those who drop squad by accident via crash or disconnect etc.

[Nekomian]

9 minutes ago, KommandantViy said:

giving everyone a host migration and chance to lose all their progress

My proposal means that both forced (player induced) and incidental (power loss, network disconnects, etc.) host migrations would prevent progress loss, which would be better than punishing the player if squad mates are stalling (which also happens, when someone keeps fishing and won't go to extract with everyone else) and they just want to leave, or if someone had a crash or network loss. It would help the game feel a lot more "drop in, drop out" and less "need to extract with host or migration will destroy my time invested", regardless of what caused the migration. This would be especially nice for areas that don't even give the way for players to leave squad too.

I kind of like the fact that the game is leaning more towards a "drop in / drop out" style of play - I can find a group, leave whenever I want, and join another just as easily. This is especially important for mobile devices, like the Switch and upcoming iOS / Android ports. The main problem stems not from that but the inflexibility and jankiness of the migration itself, and solving how unreliable and inconsistent they are would solve any problems related to them (not just reward loss, but also progression stops, abilities being disabled, mission timer and stats resetting, etc).

[KommandantViy]

1 minute ago, Naroxas44 said:

My proposal means that both forced (player induced) and incidental (power loss, network disconnects, etc.) host migrations would prevent progress loss, which would be better than punishing the player if squad mates are stalling (which also happens, when someone keeps fishing and won't go to extract with everyone else) and they just want to leave, or if someone had a crash or network loss. It would help the game feel a lot more "drop in, drop out" and less "need to extract with host or migration will destroy my time invested", regardless of what caused the migration. This would be especially nice for areas that don't even give the way for players to leave squad too.

I kind of like the fact that the game is leaning more towards a "drop in / drop out" style of play - I can find a group, leave whenever I want, and join another just as easily. This is especially important for mobile devices, like the Switch and upcoming iOS / Android ports. The main problem stems not from that but the inflexibility and jankiness of the migration itself, and solving how unreliable and inconsistent they are would solve any problems related to them (not just reward loss, but also progression stops, abilities being disabled, mission timer and stats resetting, etc).

Sure the ideal solution would be to just not have host migrations delete progress, but after years DE still hasn't managed to completely eliminate that possibility, so I'm not totally sure if they could manage to do so now

[Nekomian]

I think they're gonna have to re-vamp them if they don't want an uproar when the mobile ports release - if they let phones with spotty connections and a variety of specs be host, there's gonna be tons of problems and migrations constantly (crashes, accidentally pressed sleep button, went into area with poor cell service, etc). If they don't re-contextualize how the migrations affect gameplay and make them more seamless / less intrusive and problematic, it's just going to get worse tbh. I'm not super confident about it either but, I do think it's the best approach and the least punishing to players.

[Klypto]

This suggestion would be horrendous for anyone wanting to stay in a mission if the host decides they want to leave.