"warframe Has Crahsed" - Congratulations. You Just Lost 60 Minutes Of Your Playing Time.

[InForWar]

I just "finished" an ODD, about 50 waves that were "cut short" thanks to me being a host and my client crashing for absolutely no reason at all. of course since i was the host, everyone else dced as well.

Since this game is based on player hosting, the client does not make contact with the server untill the game ends, which means - Lose connection, lose everything

 

I can't think of a last defense mission that lasted more than 40 waves that wasn't cut short for what ever reason that was.

either one of the 4 got dced or crashed and we had to leave, or the host crashed and everyone dced

but i can think of my last 10 runs that were 40+ my client crashed several times and the host's client several times so everyone dced.

 

This is seriously getting on my nerves and therefore i created this thread

 

Edit:

 

My pc is top notch (not REALLY top notch, but i sustain 85 fps.), i make sure all my drivers are up to date on a weekly basis.

my internet is VERY reliable, with 40mb/s. (i live in israel with 75 ping to europe, so yeah, provider is quite beastly)

and there is no issues like these in any other games.

 

Please, if you are going to comment on my systems, don't,

but if you are sharing the same experience, please do because then DE would actually take matter into hand

 

Every time i get into a survival missions or defense and i achieve something worth of value, i try to get out as soon as possible because i'm just afraid that any second the game would crash and i'll lose all my progress.

 

An idea i came up with in order to solve such issues (of course it's temporary until DE gets proper servers):

 

If DE were to create a small server similar to the chat server that isn't being held on the peer to peer network

could be used to store a few lines of code that will determine the exact wave and who exactly was in the party plus what rewards were achieved in order to quickly hook the network up

in a case of a d/c or a client crash.

 

Such server is extremely lightweight because, storing a few lines of code that the client simply has to draw from is very very very very lightweight (probably a few bytes) and if you multiply it by (extremely excessive number of games running at the same time) a million it still won't weigh much.

 

The bandwidth it needs to hold is not too large, because the client will only contact it in an emergency (crash / d/c) and in the beginning of the match or every 5 waves. the connection time should be only a couple of milliseconds.

 

And that solution seems to me the perfect one for now. with the "low budget" that they have

Edited July 16, 2014 by InForWar
No dev bashing, pls.

[Mirriky]

Seen this happen a lot, DE needs to look into a solution

[Vahlak]

Are your drivers up to date?

Is your pc over heating?

Is there a memory leak?

Can your pc handle the increasing stress as more enemies, more physics, more particle effects (and so on) that occur when you go for so long into a    mission that throws more at you the longer you go?

Did someone have a power surge, did their modem or router just drop connection randomly ( like mine does Q.Q )?  

 

There is so much that can go wrong with technology in general that we cant tell if the problem is actually a bug, or something that happened on your end, without more information than  "I dced, fix it"

 

 

(And do you not notice the weekly dozens of bug fixes that go out in this (still) open beta game?)

[InForWar]

Are your drivers up to date?

Is your pc over heating?

Is there a memory leak?

Can your pc handle the increasing stress as more enemies, more physics, more particle effects (and so on) that occur when you go for so long into a    mission that throws more at you the longer you go?

Did someone have a power surge, did their modem or router just drop connection randomly ( like mine does Q.Q )?  

 

There is so much that can go wrong with technology in general that we cant tell if the problem is actually a bug, or something that happened on your end, without more information than  "I dced, fix it"

 

 

(And do you not notice the weekly dozens of bug fixes that go out in this (still) open beta game?)

My pc has no issues at all.

nor my network connection.

 

It can't be my issues because i monitor my pc and i play plenty other games that are much more hardware demanding and stressing than this.

This game is just full of bugs, it's in beta.

it needs fixing and DE isn't doing anything for that matter. 

[Lokime]

It happens

[--Sokol]

Are your drivers up to date?

Is your pc over heating?

Is there a memory leak?

Can your pc handle the increasing stress as more enemies, more physics, more particle effects (and so on) that occur when you go for so long into a    mission that throws more at you the longer you go?

Did someone have a power surge, did their modem or router just drop connection randomly ( like mine does Q.Q )?  

 

There is so much that can go wrong with technology in general that we cant tell if the problem is actually a bug, or something that happened on your end, without more information than  "I dced, fix it"

While these might be valid reasons why the game has crashed for some people after reaching high levels, those with high-end PCs and fast network connections, top-notch up to date drivers and whatnot still experience this problem. 

 

If the game has endless type of missions then the engine and game itself must be able to sustain the stress of 4 players doing 1h+ / 50+ waves without crashing/disconnecting. If it can't, then it's not optimized well enough.

As I said, some people have fast, up to date drivers, fast and reliable connection but there is still chance that they'll crash (based on countless threads on forum since more than half a year ago).

[Sziklamester]

The open beta title is not an answer for crashes and losing time from your life. Drivers can also stop working and can the game crash but everyone everytime just think only at the players pc's the bad and not their servers. In a pve grinding game which coop at least the coop feeling should be fix.

[Inquisitioner]

Happens to me all the time, I ragequit and tell the game to fuckoff for a month or so usually :)

[Davoodoo]

Are your drivers up to date?

Is your pc over heating?

Is there a memory leak?

Can your pc handle the increasing stress as more enemies, more physics, more particle effects (and so on) that occur when you go for so long into a    mission that throws more at you the longer you go?

Did someone have a power surge, did their modem or router just drop connection randomly ( like mine does Q.Q )?  

 

There is so much that can go wrong with technology in general that we cant tell if the problem is actually a bug, or something that happened on your end, without more information than  "I dced, fix it"

 

 

(And do you not notice the weekly dozens of bug fixes that go out in this (still) open beta game?)

These crashes have nothing to do with pc performance, i can hold steady over 100fps and still crash sometimes,

Also i cant alt tab while loading or the game will freeze, program not responding, doesnt happen in other products.

 

Its their code fault. 100/100 times crashes are developers fault.

 

And no i havent seen bug fix which fixes crashes which happens for over a year now.

Sure crash once or twice in a week might happen, but do something to save players progress in that case.

Why i cant see such thing in bug fixes.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Davoodoo

[ODDragon]

Are you by chance using multi-thread rendering?(Selectable in the launcher's option menu.) Turning that one off fixed 90% of the game engine crashes for me.

[InForWar]

Are you by chance using multi-thread rendering?(Selectable in the launcher's option menu.) Turning that one off fixed 90% of the game engine crashes for me.

Multi thread rendering is by default turned off unless the game it self wants to activate it.

although, i can tell you the game would just stop and crash if your driver crashes (tried to boost my overclock, which by factory is already overclocked)

But again, it happened before i tried to boost my OC, so don't come telling me it's because of that

Edited July 12, 2014 by InForWar

[unmog]

Hate it too, this has been a thing for a long time. DE doesnt seem to give two S#&$s though.

[ASH_PRIME]

This is honestly why I cringe when I see so many people boasting of 40+ waves,
All they are asking for is RAGE time when it crashes.

My Clan loves XINI, and I had a clanmate who made it to Wave 49 with me when he crashed.
He honestly hasn't played it again in over 3 months...  yes that's the kind of rage this can create.

Shouldn't be a hard thing to code to have it SAVE your progress every 5 waves or every 5 minutes incase it does crash/disconnect?

 

[(PSN)Count_Dante]

For a second, lets pretend that the developers didnt intend the game to be played into the 40+ waves to begin with but the cap or restriction was removed because the Warframe community is never sated, not even for a week...

 

If the game is crashing at wave 40, how about quitting at 35?

[InForWar]

The more people supporting this thread, the sooner it'l draw DE's attention to the subject, which is very crucial 

[arisaka]

The issue is not that the game crashed, but the fact that the game crashed and you lost all your progress because of it. I believe this thread and many of its posters, including the OP, expect DE to magically fix crashes and then the problem will magically be fixed. Crashes will happen. The real issue is not getting anything from over an hour of playtime because of a crash you couldn't forsee.

 

I'm not going to pretend I know how to save the exact state of an ongoing mission using the peer-to-peer networking system Warframe has, so here's an idea I've been toying around with that saves overall progress. With this system, you might "only" lose 10-20 minutes of playtime (yes, that's still a lot, sorry) while also letting you skip past the lower level enemies you can instantly kill ten times over with one shot.

 

For something like Defense (and maybe Survival as well), why not take note when players have reached a certain wave number? For example, maybe I've reached wave 43 in Tower 1 Defense with one friend. The game would then record that me and my friend are eligible to start that same mission at wave 1, 11, 21, 31, or 41 (every ten waves would be a checkpoint/milestone). If I reached wave 56 with that same friend in another run, we would be able to start Tower 1 Defense at wave 51 as well as the previous milestones.

 

A party will only be able to skip ahead to the earliest unlocked starting point. For example, if a player joined my party who has never played Tower 1 Def before, he/she will have to start at wave 1 and thus the entire party has to start at 1, regardless of my own progress.

 

EDIT: My idea is not to save anything about the specific instance at all, especially locally; sorry if that wasn't clear. It's to allow players to start from a larger wave number at any time, not just after a crash. Reaching a milestone and successfully finishing the mission would send that information to the master server along with the normal stuff like items picked up, credits earned, etc.

Edited July 15, 2014 by arisaka

[Moderius]

Why isn't this Beta perfect!?

[InForWar]

The issue is not that the game crashed, but the fact that the game crashed and you lost all your progress because of it. I believe this thread and many of its posters, including the OP, expect DE to magically fix crashes and then the problem will magically be fixed. Crashes will happen. The real issue is not getting anything from over an hour of playtime because of a crash you couldn't forsee.

 

I'm not going to pretend I know how to save the exact state of an ongoing mission using the peer-to-peer networking system Warframe has, so here's an idea I've been toying around with that saves overall progress. With this system, you might "only" lose 10-20 minutes of playtime (yes, that's still a lot, sorry) while also letting you skip past the lower level enemies you can instantly kill ten times over with one shot.

 

For something like Defense (and maybe Survival as well), why not take note when players have reached a certain wave number? For example, maybe I've reached wave 43 in Tower 1 Defense with one friend. The game would then record that me and my friend are eligible to start that same mission at wave 1, 11, 21, 31, or 41 (every ten waves would be a checkpoint/milestone). If I reached wave 56 with that same friend in another run, we would be able to start Tower 1 Defense at wave 51 as well as the previous milestones.

 

A party will only be able to skip ahead to the earliest unlocked starting point. For example, if a player joined my party who has never played Tower 1 Def before, he/she will have to start at wave 1 and thus the entire party has to start at 1, regardless of my own progress.

It raises an issue.

The network traffic is already really high and the data transferred is relatively super high for a peer to peer game.

Adding more traffic over what there already is will not solve anything. only make things worse, and in the case of a bad host, the more likely you'll drop since their internet will not be capable of handling the mass of traffic. basically saving progress on your own computer is bad, and exploitable.

 

But,

If DE were to create a small server similar to the chat server that isn't being held on the peer to peer network

could be used to store a few lines of code that will determine the exact wave and who exactly was in the party in order to quickly hook the network up

in a case of a d/c or a client crash.

 

Such server is extremely lightweight because, storing a few lines of code that the client simply has to draw from is very very very very lightweight (probably a few bytes) and if you multiply it by (extremely excessive number of games running at the same time) a million it still won't weigh much.

 

The bandwidth it needs to hold is not too large, because the client will only contact it in an emergency (crash / d/c) and in the beginning of the match or every 5 waves. the connection time should be only a couple of milliseconds.

 

And that solution seems to me the perfect one for now. with the "low budget" that they have

[arisaka]

It raises an issue.

The network traffic is already really high and the data transferred is relatively super high for a peer to peer game.

Adding more traffic over what there already is will not solve anything. only make things worse, and in the case of a bad host, the more likely you'll drop since their internet will not be capable of handling the mass of traffic. basically saving progress on your own computer is bad, and exploitable.

 

But,

If DE were to create a small server similar to the chat server that isn't being held on the peer to peer network

could be used to store a few lines of code that will determine the exact wave and who exactly was in the party in order to quickly hook the network up

in a case of a d/c or a client crash.

 

Such server is extremely lightweight because, storing a few lines of code that the client simply has to draw from is very very very very lightweight (probably a few bytes) and if you multiply it by (extremely excessive number of games running at the same time) a million it still won't weigh much.

 

The bandwidth it needs to hold is not too large, because the client will only contact it in an emergency (crash / d/c) and in the beginning of the match or every 5 waves. the connection time should be only a couple of milliseconds.

 

And that solution seems to me the perfect one for now. with the "low budget" that they have

My idea is not to save anything about the specific instance at all, especially locally; sorry if that wasn't clear. It's to allow players to start from a larger wave number at any time, not just after a crash. Reaching a milestone and successfully finishing the mission would send that information to the master server along with the normal stuff like items picked up, credits earned, etc.

 

Your small server idea sounds reasonable (again, I don't know how any of this works). Steam stats say that Warframe has a peak of 15k players, so assuming that there are also 15k peak players not on Steam means that the amount of data required is pretty low. But I feel like my idea is less of a solution to prevent unforeseeable problems from disrupting long missions, and instead, a way to make long, wave-based missions provide the right amount of challenge faster so players will never have to put such a huge time investment to simply get to where they were before. Both of our ideas in conjunction would probably be much better than either one individually.

[InForWar]

My idea is not to save anything about the specific instance at all, especially locally; sorry if that wasn't clear. It's to allow players to start from a larger wave number at any time, not just after a crash. Reaching a milestone and successfully finishing the mission would send that information to the master server along with the normal stuff like items picked up, credits earned, etc.

 

Your small server idea sounds reasonable (again, I don't know how any of this works). Steam stats say that Warframe has a peak of 15k players, so assuming that there are also 15k peak players not on Steam means that the amount of data required is pretty low. But I feel like my idea is less of a solution to prevent unforeseeable problems from disrupting long missions, and instead, a way to make long, wave-based missions provide the right amount of challenge faster so players will never have to put such a huge time investment to simply get to where they were before. Both of our ideas in conjunction would probably be much better than either one individually.

Your idea would be great for single player.

although, i don't think there needs to be an option to start at wave 50, but there needs to be a place where mobs simply spawn at level 50+ and then they become stronger and stronger

but, it's not related to the subject

Edited July 15, 2014 by InForWar

[Davoodoo]

For a second, lets pretend that the developers didnt intend the game to be played into the 40+ waves to begin with but the cap or restriction was removed because the Warframe community is never sated, not even for a week...

 

If the game is crashing at wave 40, how about quitting at 35?

It doesnt matter what they intended. It might matter in balance and drops.

 

But if theres an option to stay further game shouldnt crash if you do.

[InForWar]

It doesnt matter what they intended. It might matter in balance and drops.

 

But if theres an option to stay further game shouldnt crash if you do.

I totaly  agree. Why won't just stop playing at all? Why shouldn't we?

Because we want to play what DE's been cooking for us for quite some time.

But really, i eat what you cook and every once in a while the fish reaks.

Why would i continue eating it? i'll protest to DE to fix their cooking, and make it better next time.