I Love It, But... Please Address This Issue

[Xen0sys]

I dislike your 'distance cause disconnect and separation of game sessions' solution because sometimes in private games me and my friends split up to get the datamasses in spy missions (pair off when two separate doors are marked as objective doors on the minimap) and that would disconnect us if we ended up too far apart doing this.

Simply letting people extract on their own, probably through a promt that says "extract or continue" in a similar way to how defence missions give a popup seems like a very easy to implement solution that can only leave people either happy, or happier. Rushers aren't affected at all, they get to the end and maybe even get to extract faster (can reduce the 60 second wait time) everyone else isn't forced to exit the mission before they want to, win win.

ps, personally I generally do what the group wants, unless they are exploring not just side rooms (the little rooms with loot lockers) but are exploring the entire mission (ie, they will explore every direction other than the one that is marked as the objective first) I'm willing to be a bit ahead of the group cos they're looting lockers on the way and catch up during the next fight, but if they aren't even going in the right direction.... Both people who rush without killing, and people who explore the entire map, under the current system, should be forming private or solo games, both systems negatively impact the game they join and i have personally experienced both (you can tell people are not killing because at the end, in the stats, they have no kills, and it's easy to see if someone is in full map exploration mode). People who move fast are fun, people who move a bit slow are fun, I don't mind either, just hate the extremes. Under the system I described above, it matters much less and I don't care if they join pugs.

Totally valid concerns I didn't consider.

That is an improvement to say the least but it doesn't help with group splitting. When a group splits, the isolated members don't share exp.

Easy way around making the session split work better would be to allow the host to toggle it. Or the group votes on it right quick before things commence.

Want to allow rushers/splitting up - fine. Want to enforce coop? fine.

It could also only be enabled on online games so you and your friend could play privately fine.

[KazyJumps]

Totally valid concerns I didn't consider.

That is an improvement to say the least but it doesn't help with group splitting. When a group splits, the isolated members don't share exp.

Easy way around making the session split work better would be to allow the host to toggle it. Or the group votes on it right quick before things commence.

Want to allow rushers/splitting up - fine. Want to enforce coop? fine.

It could also only be enabled on online games so you and your friend could play privately fine.

While that would be nice, it does introduce some problems:

1) Option bloat is bad. I know solving one problem with options doesn't sound like a problem, but if you get into the habit you end up with waaaay to many options. Huge cluttered option menus are bad, too many windows saying "play like x?" before a mission are bad. And implementing too many systems so solve the same problem is bad. (that's the devs point of view btw, not the users)

2) what about the person who joins mid game, do they get to choose in any way?

Host toggling it is probably not an option. The host is chosen arbitrarily during automatic matchmaking, why should that randomly chosen one person in a group of four get to choose?

Only enabling the distance system in non-private play is an obvious step that I hadn't considered, derp. Yes, that would basically solve my issue. I also hadn't considered the xp not being shared if the group is split. That's only really a problem is the spawn is split too (game spawns either x concurrent enemies or x enemies per minute, is that evenly split between separate groups or do both groups get the full load of enemies?) If the spawn is split between groups it would lead to a net reduction in xp gained, if both groups get a full load of enemies then xp gain is the same (although the content is harder as a result, if people would've been fine in the mission with four people but can't handle it with just two then that's a problem)

[Xen0sys]

While that would be nice, it does introduce some problems:

1) Option bloat is bad. I know solving one problem with options doesn't sound like a problem, but if you get into the habit you end up with waaaay to many options. Huge cluttered option menus are bad, too many windows saying "play like x?" before a mission are bad. And implementing too many systems so solve the same problem is bad. (that's the devs point of view btw, not the users)

2) what about the person who joins mid game, do they get to choose in any way?

Host toggling it is probably not an option. The host is chosen arbitrarily during automatic matchmaking, why should that randomly chosen one person in a group of four get to choose?

Only enabling the distance system in non-private play is an obvious step that I hadn't considered, derp. Yes, that would basically solve my issue. I also hadn't considered the xp not being shared if the group is split. That's only really a problem is the spawn is split too (game spawns either x concurrent enemies or x enemies per minute, is that evenly split between separate groups or do both groups get the full load of enemies?) If the spawn is split between groups it would lead to a net reduction in xp gained, if both groups get a full load of enemies then xp gain is the same (although the content is harder as a result, if people would've been fine in the mission with four people but can't handle it with just two then that's a problem)

1) In aggreance with that.

2) mhm - addressing it below

So, option bloat is bad, but how many more options would need to be added? This would be a feature that almost exists right now except it doesn't happen seemlessly, only forcibly (disconnects). I'd say they still have considerable room before bloat is even an issue - this game has one of the cleanest options panels I've seen.

I retract the host set/vote idea. Based on what you are saying, I think it would go better in the generic options panel per player. Put this feature as a checkbox (enabled by default only for pug games).

Good question about enemy spawns - not sure how that is decided and what factors into it. Maybe the spawns should appear behind the lag group and ahead of the forward group to subtly bring the two groups back together. Enemy spawn count could alternativly increase the fruther apart the groups are, or, the 2 spawn regions would be spawning enemies for all 4 players so it would be harder to do with 2.

This wouldn't help so much if the lag group stopped to actually kill them all though as they would still be behind. A rusher might also just run by if he/she didn't want to kill them. Here again is where the different play-styles wouldn't necessarily react the same way.

I'd say it might be better to only spawn ahead of the forward group but then the lag group might get no kills or dramatically less. I'd rule out using spawn manipulation to regroup a team as there are too many ways to react to them - which is kind of great in a way.

Splicing in my idea again.. If the group were to split, and the session were to also split, then the spawns for enemies would re-center on where the players are - each enjoys in his/her own way.

Players would be prioritized when queuing to go with other players with the option checked I suppose. If it finds none, then itl dump into any pug. I'd say that's pretty harmless. Maybe it only triggers if the groups are more than a minute apart or more than 2 minutes.

It's a dynamic solution to a dynamic problem. Increasing wait time at the extraction point would work also technically but exp would be void unless you were near enough so it's not a total solution.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Xen0sys

[Aizeol]

This has become a flame war. I see no one addressing the issue that this game is meant to be cooperative.

Any tenno online have made the decision to act as a team player. That is a plain and simple truth. A rusher is just as guilty of negatively effecting his or her team's experience as a turtle is at negatively effecting theirs.

If a teammate has expressed to the player that is disrupting their environment (be they rusher or turtle) and they do not agree to act as a team; This can mean a rusher slows down, or a turtle speeds up, then the teammate that has negatively effected the session is at fault. It does not matter which offense the committed, they have aggravated and wronged their team.

Many solutions have been offered. Some will work "better" than others, but they are vaild. Having a host migration move a player who is obviously playing solo (rushing or looting) is probably a very fair one. So is having a stalker spawn near a tenno that is clearly "more skilled" as they would be a more high value target.

Having the ability to, after politely asking the player causing harm to the session to stop, report them and have their online play suspended while allowing them to play private with friends or solo is also one to consider.

These all address the issue that there are two playstyles emerging within warframe and neither is truly being catered to. There still isn't any way to efficiently stealth, and the levels are designed for a flowing "parkour-run".

Personally, I would love to see both become better and more focused.

That being said, insulting someone across the internet solves nothing. Address the issue that has been proposed. Don't think that either side is inherently right unless it has been empirically proven. Rushers aren't always rushing and they aren't always the ones causing problems. Neither are looters. They both are just playing the game the way they want to play it and they don't play well together.

[Sniktch]

Occam's Razoring this:

All extract points have a "two man door" on their entry. Problem solved. If someone wants to Speedy Gonzales across the map, he's perfectly welcome to wait there while the rest of the team moves up in close order, covering angles and clearing firelanes like intelligent soldiers, cuz he ain't getting it open alone, period. And since Lotus already pops those open for "actual" soloists without issue, no further coding or tweaking needed.

[mightyrob]

There might be something to what you are saying but I think of my Tenno as a space ninja. As a space ninja he/she would want to complete the objective and get the hell out of there. I think single player might be the way to go there.

[Sniktch]

MightyRob, there's a huge difference between "completing the objective and exfiltrating" and "abandoning your teammates to leadfoot it past every hostile in the mission, then triggering the extract alone, costing said teammates all progress from the mission". Yes, moving forward at a decent clip is good tactics. So is covering your flanks, moving as a squad, taking a moment to assess the situation, laying out an enfilade - or preventing the enemy from chokepointing you into one - and any number of solid military tactics. Everything is situational; offhand, I can't think of a situation where ditching your team purely because you want to move faster can be considered anything but reprehensible. If you think they're moving too slow, teach them how to move faster. Instruct your fellow soldiers. Tell them, as well as show them, the tools they'll need, the tactics that'll make a difference, the ideas that make us Tenno, not just mercs.