solution for host migrate; let us toggle hosting

[SaidTheRogue]

22 hours ago, (XB1)KayAitch said:

I think the problem is that everybody wants to be host.

...this again? how many times is someone gonna pose this argument?

first of all, this is just one big huge assumption. 2nd, even if it were somehow magically true in 100% of cases (not even in the same galaxy as being true) it still wouldnt change anything. 3rd, no one gets to elect themselves justiciar of what others cannot or should not do. if i wanna set myself as host all the time (i have the pc and bandwidth to back it up) then fine. 

its almost like some of the ppl playing this game have never heard of live and let live. you cannot legislate based on worst case scenario. in some cases thats practical, yes. but this aint a military wargame exercise, its just a damn video game.

bottom line, a toggle built into the options which makes a player always be the host COULD cause THAT person to sometimes wait longer for groups (hows that different from setting yourself to a limit of low ping? it even warns you when you do) but thats not only implied, but understood. and, it doesnt necessarily hurt anyone but that player who sets themselves as always-host.

i mean, im not sure whats so hard to understand about all this...

[(XBOX)KayAitch]

46 minutes ago, SaidTheRogue said:

this again? how many times is someone gonna pose this argument?

I did go on to explain why.

46 minutes ago, SaidTheRogue said:

first of all, this is just one big huge assumption.

It's not an assumption, it's a principle of game theory (the John Nash kind, not the Matpat one) called the Prisoner's Dilemma: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

46 minutes ago, SaidTheRogue said:

2nd, even if it were somehow magically true in 100% of cases

Well if that were the case nobody could get a match because they'd all opted to be host-only. They can't all be host.

And you don't need 100%, just 25% would be enough to start damaging matchmaking, as once you hit that only people who select host-only will ever get to be host, and in every full match you need the other 75% of players to not be hosts.

46 minutes ago, SaidTheRogue said:

its almost like some of the ppl playing this game have never heard of live and let live. you cannot legislate based on worst case scenario.

That doesn't really work here - libertarian objectivism can't apply because Warframe matchmaking will never be a free market. The end goal is not your freedom in the system, it's DE's value. Those goals are aligned (they get more money by making a good game) but they're never going to let you do what you want at the cost of their player base. 

46 minutes ago, SaidTheRogue said:

3rd, no one gets to elect themselves justiciar of what others cannot or should not do. if i wanna set myself as host all the time (i have the pc and bandwidth to back it up) then fine. 

Well, yes, DE can and do, inside their game. They decide that you cannot just, say, write your own rivens and add them to your save. They write the rules, they get to decide that players get to do. They have to, if you just want to be God in your own system go write your own game, but who else will want to play it?

46 minutes ago, SaidTheRogue said:

in some cases thats practical, yes. but this aint a military wargame exercise, its just a damn video game.

It's millions of dollars of revenue, a couple of hundred people's jobs and a hugely complicated algorithm - the people who write and maintain the matchmaking mechanics will be acutely aware of game theory and the prisoner's dilemma. Odd that, the mathematically minded folks who write software being aware of the mathematics of game systems 😜

46 minutes ago, SaidTheRogue said:

bottom line, a toggle built into the options which makes a player always be the host COULD cause THAT person to sometimes wait longer for groups 

Who are they going to be playing with? Only people who don't pick the host-only option, so you'll wait longer for a game and they won't, but they'll be unlikely to be host.

So you can host-only and they can host only and you both wait. Or you can host-only and they don't and you win every time, or neither of you is host only and you each win ½ of the time. The non host-only player only wins if everyone else is non host-only. 

This is the problem with the prisoner's dilemma, and there no assuming is required, there is a ton of research: in any anonmised system people almost always choose the selfish option. Face to face it becomes more of a kind of trust-poker (and there are a ton of games that use this mechanic) but when anonymous and trivial (as you say, it is a game) people are never altruistic.

46 minutes ago, SaidTheRogue said:

hows that different from setting yourself to a limit of low ping? it even warns you when you do

Because then you're limiting your matchmaking to your local area, but they don't lose out by being match made with you - they still get the same chance of being host.

46 minutes ago, SaidTheRogue said:

it doesnt necessarily hurt anyone but that player who sets themselves as always-host.

i mean, im not sure whats so hard to understand about all this

I'm trying to explain why it hurts everyone, but in particular it runs the risk of hurting DE's bottom line, which is why they'll never do it. It doesn't matter whether you care about game theory or anyone else in Warframe's matchmaking, but DE want the best experience for the most people.

That means no host-only option, sorry.

Edited January 20, 2019 by (XB1)KayAitch

[SaidTheRogue]

...right. that was fun, but for starters, prisoners dilemma simply cant apply as hosting and de's game in general isnt a closed system, as is the case with prisoners dilemma.

also, youre basically trying to propose that the host-toggle feature would hurt their bottom line, but this isnt the case for two reasons.

host-toggle would be opt-in.. most wouldnt know about it or bother with it, thats plain to see from most people not even changing their ping limit.

then, setting oneself host-only is no grand utopia like you describe. it has pros and cons.. you give up something to get something. what you 'get' is avoiding crappy hosting.. and what you give (or otherwise must suffer) is likely longer wait times for a group, at least sometimes. i myself would be fine wtih this. a fast mission beats a slow one.

as usual, the other side in a discussion often needs the psychology behind their answer examined. why do YOU say no thanks? you afraid youre gonna be left sitting? is your particular internet kinda crappy? for the above reasons pertaining to opt-in, its no skin off your ass.. and either way, your point of view is some reason to withhold such a feature from the entire playerbase?

your primary ASSUMPTION is that being the host is inherently 'good' or otherwise desirable. in most cases it is, but its not the miracle fix that you claim for players' whos pc/inet is slow. just being the host doesnt make much difference. but youre also wrongly assuming that the average player is gonna use the host-toggle feature to pursue this. as above, most of the kids that play this game cant be bothered to give two sh*ts about digging around in the options, for any reason.

as stated earlier in the thread, burden of proof is on the plaintiff and if your contention is that Feature X shouldnt be added due to potential bad thing X, you first must show this negative condition as being guaranteed, which you certainly cannot do. in most cases, itll allow those who know theyre good to host, to proactively do so. and no, none of this nonsense where you join a squad, oh im not host, leave.. requeue.. etc. complete nonsense.

[XaoGarrent]

On 2018-12-28 at 11:51 AM, SaidTheRogue said:

in before a horde of teenagers saying HURR DURR MAKE A GROUP etc.

The irony of people giving this response when this topic comes up, is that the problems with hosting exist in part due to the lack of a proper lobby and team building/recruiting interface. City of Heroes had this figured out in the mid 2000s, and hell, even Diablo 2 had better support for hosting and joining games.

[(XBOX)KayAitch]

9 hours ago, SaidTheRogue said:

prisoners dilemma simply cant apply as hosting and de's game in general isnt a closed system, as is the case with prisoners dilemma

Of course it is, or are there some people playing Warframe via some company other than DE? I guess you could argue something like that for consoles, but those will be pretty locked down as part of their business model. Microsoft will not let a rival (pirate) client connect to Warframe's servers on X1, for instance.

9 hours ago, SaidTheRogue said:

host-toggle would be opt-in.. most wouldnt know about it or bother with it,

Who are those host-only players going to be playing with? They might not know that they didn't get a shot at being host, but they're definitely affected by it.

9 hours ago, SaidTheRogue said:

thats plain to see from most people not even changing their ping limit.

Again, ping limit is quite different. DE will target and test for a max ping (which really matters in some markets where internet isn't very good) and let you reduce it. 

Host advantage benefits just you.

Better ping benefits everyone in the match.

9 hours ago, SaidTheRogue said:

setting oneself host-only is no grand utopia like you describe.

Is that what I described? I compared it to the Prisonercs Dilemma - an unwinnable situation. Not sure where you got utopia from.

9 hours ago, SaidTheRogue said:

why do YOU say no thanks? you afraid youre gonna be left sitting? is your particular internet kinda crappy? for the above reasons pertaining to opt-in, its no skin off your ass.. and either way, your point of view is some reason to withhold such a feature from the entire playerbase?

I don't say "no thanks". I, like most people, want to be host with all the advantages that confers. If I could always be host then I probably would choose that too 

And if I don't choose to always be host I'll never get to be host, because there will always be someone who's been waiting longer than me for a match where they get to be host.

But DE absolutely won't do it, because a secret (or at least obscure) option that makes the game better for some users at a cost to their general player base is bad for business. 

To make the most money they want the best matchmaking for the most users. Something that benefits some users at the expense of others is unlikely to be worth doing unless that risk could bring them in money to justify the change.

9 hours ago, SaidTheRogue said:

your primary ASSUMPTION is that being the host is inherently 'good' or otherwise desirable. in most cases it is

Yes, there are probably some corner cases, but 99% of the time, for players with reasonable internet latency and not running on severely outdated hardware (which only applies to a small subset of PC players), it's better to be host. 

Like you said: "in most cases it is".

9 hours ago, SaidTheRogue said:

wrongly assuming that the average player is gonna use the host-toggle feature to pursue this

I'm not. 

If 1 concurrent player in your matchmaking area turn this on your chance of hosting goes down.

If 25% of concurrent players do you'll never get to host unless you switch it on. 

At some point before then loads of players come on here and ask "how come I never/hardly ever get to be host?" and someone tells them about the option and that % goes up.

Above 25% you start really struggling to get anyone a full match because the pool of people you can play with goes down.

Imaging 4 people are looking for a match. If 1 is host-only then they're always host and nobody else is, maybe you're right and they don't notice. If 2 host-only then they wait (as you say) but the other 2 players now only get 3 in a match. Everyone now finds it harder to get a full match, and the moaning on here will be about never getting matchmaking, not about hosts.

Incedentally, this is a known issue in matchmaking most often caused by old style DLC where some uses would buy new MP maps and others wouldn't. Players without DLC could host those with, but not vice versa. This resulted in either the new maps not coming up in rotation or splitting the matchmaking into two groups. Ultimately everyone waited longer for matches, so fewer people played, so waits got even longer. 

9 hours ago, SaidTheRogue said:

stated earlier in the thread, burden of proof is on the plaintiff and if your contention is that Feature X shouldnt be added due to potential bad thing X

Er, no dude. It's not really a "burden of proof" - you're making a case for the change, I don't have to make a case for no-change. No change will happen if we do nothing. You are the one who needs to convince people of the value of your change.

But yeah, I don't have proof. I know a fair bit about game theory in mathematics and how matchmaking algorithms work under the hood, but I don't work for DE and I'm making an educated guess here.

I think your assumption is wrong: that players who don't choose/don't know about this option will be unaffected by it. Anything that changes matchmaking dynamics is going to affect everyone, or at the very least have a risk of affecting everyone.

And that's why I don't need to prove anything. DE won't do this because even if the risk of damaging their matchmaking is tiny they're risking a lot of money. Why would they take that bet? If you want this the you need to prove to them that this won't damage their matchmaking, or at the very least have rewards that make the risk worth it.

 

[SaidTheRogue]

Sigh. You're just erecting a straw man and knocking him down again. All your objections are based on suppositions. Unless you can magically guarantee that this worst case scenario you continue to try to describe will definitely happen, then there's no concrete reason not to add a feature to the game that most won't use.

[(XBOX)KayAitch]

50 minutes ago, SaidTheRogue said:

Sigh. You're just erecting a straw man and knocking him down again

I don't think that's what a straw man is. I'm telling you your plan has side effects you aren't addressing, not making up a fake argument to knock down. You want host-only mode, I get it.

51 minutes ago, SaidTheRogue said:

All your objections are based on suppositions.

Yes, the other approach being implement it and then see, but we don't really have the ability to do that.

We don't work for DE, we don't have access to their matchmaking algorithm, of course it's supposition. That doesn't make it invalid.

53 minutes ago, SaidTheRogue said:

Unless you can magically guarantee that this worst case scenario you continue to try to describe will definitely happen, then there's no concrete reason not to add a feature to the game that most won't use

That isn't how development teams work - that bit I do know as I manage them for a living.

You want a new setting and a change to the matchmaking code. That isn't free. It takes work on the UI, work on the options save/retrieve, work on the matchmaking algorithm, and testing for all of the above. Testing the matchmaking is particularly expensive.

So you're asking them to spend money on something. That isn't a straw man or me making guessing, it will definitely cost them money to make the change you're asking for.

How much? That does involve guesswork, but matchmaking code is never simple to change, and most changes are high risk (a build that breaks it will really upset their users) so they'll test it a lot. It's unlikely to be quick, and the kind of software engineers who can do that work don't come cheap either.

Either they need new investment to make your change (ie hire new devs) or repurpose existing devs (ie take a decision off something else to do this). In either case they'd put together a business case - a document explaining to management why they want to spend the money, and usually that comes down to making money.

So, your change: add host-only mode...

What are your benefits? Are you going to spend more money with DE if they do it? Are you likely to leave if they don't? Will implementing this attract new or returning players?

You haven't answered any of these questions. Yeah, you want it and it would make your life better, but why should they care if you'll still play and pay anyway?

What are your costs? Neither of us know, but DE will evaluate that, so your benefits argument needs to potentially generate more income than that cost figure.

What are your risks? You think there are none, fine, but DE will still investigate them. What I'm trying to tell you is that there is a significant risk, and while you can just dismiss/ignore it if you want, DE won't. The team that works on the matchmaking code will be acutely aware of this kind of risk. Maybe they'll agree with you, but they won't just ignore it.

To be honest I don't think host-only is a good solution in the first place, I think the real solution is dedicated hosts. It's a sign of Warframe's age that it doesn't have them. That way nobody has host advantage, and the server can persist state so matches can reconnect in a way that users can't.

[SaidTheRogue]

i think youre a little confused about this 'burden' idea. i dont have to prove that its good, insofar as its obviously a desirable thing. its you who say no dont add it, based on assumed bad thing A, B, C but theres no proof that its as you say, and that such things will definitely come to pass. 

i need not prove the feature is good, or good enough.. its you who must prove that negative condition x/y/z is the way you say it is, and will definitely happen as much as you seem to assume.

and, i think its very telling that youre on console. you.. know that things work very differently on the pc platform, eh? build yourself a proper gaming pc and leave that console thing to the kiddies, then we can talk =] youll see that this host nonsense is a very, very frustrating and wildly varied thing, on pc.

further, the objection based on money doesnt seem to pass the smell test as the development of such a feature is as straightforward as it sounds. rather than the alchemy the system performs when throwing together a group.. it would instead see a group of 4 players and hey this one has host=1 in a setting somewhere, or to that effect. ok easy enough, that guy = host. done and done. how hard is this? artificially marking the difficulty of something as very high without cause is a poor counter argument. i suspect it would be fairly simple. 

also, your objection is based on your contention about money, in other words about classic exchange of money for goods/services which doesnt seem to apply. youre good at spin but its like you forgot this is a free to play game and the majority of ppl who play it dont put any money in. i myself when i buy plat know that im paying for many others and thats fine.

since ive bought plat many, many times id assume ive done so more often than you. especially since apparently its some funky process on console.. so heres a thought.. the ppl throwing money around get to pitch ideas for features, eh?

granted, a more normal dedicated game server farm would be great but would also likely break the economics of the system. the costs of adding a simple toggle style feature like i describe are nothing compared to the high up front AND ongoing costs of dedicated servers. if blizzard found it necessary to cut back on their WoW servers, you think DE is magically gonna pull money outta their ass, for years on end?

either way, your 'no' just isnt good enough and your white knighting doesnt seem well founded. its almost like you want things to be as clunky for pc as it apparently is for console. how are those 90sec load times? =D

[EiriMatsu]

Honestly, I think Warframe should look at Monster Hunter World's SOS Flare system to "fix" this issue.  My biggest issue as well as the issue most likely to make me leave this game is without question the matchmaking.  I have an easier time joining the squads of my friends who live on a different continent with 220 ping and playing missions than I do queuing public in my own region.  Having more input delay and enemy freezing with 30ms than I do with 220ms is absurd, and I'm right on the edge of joining my friends' side and simply never running public.  There's pretty much nothing in this game I can't do on my own, and the efficiency content like Eidolons I can do with my friends, so the affinity I need to reach those last few levels to MR26 are the only things keeping me in public.  

On 2019-01-21 at 4:49 AM, (XB1)KayAitch said:

Well if that were the case nobody could get a match because they'd all opted to be host-only. They can't all be host.

And you don't need 100%, just 25% would be enough to start damaging matchmaking, as once you hit that only people who select host-only will ever get to be host, and in every full match you need the other 75% of players to not be hosts.

Runs triple eidolon capture quest, host disconnects half-way through hydrolyst, failure to secure new host, returns from mission without rewards.  Is that not damaged?  Queues up for Heist Phase 2, enters elevator, mission is completed before load-in.  Is that not damaged?  Queues up for Hydron to level gear, comes in near the end of wave 3.  Not damaged?  Queue in for a Fortuna bounty, bonus mission already failed before load-in.  The biggest issue with not being able to host is that you can't control what nonsense you're going to have to deal with upon loading in.

That aside, implementation of this system would only be a problem at the start.  Players who can't do missions on their own just ultimately resign themselves to not being host or take the time to recruit a dedicated party.  DE's decision (whether it be an active stance or passive inaction) to forgo a lobby design in Warframe ultimately means that people who can do missions alone, especially those with high efficiency, end game equipment, are more likely play alone, wait for friends to play, or queue with other high MR, efficiency-built gear.  The people who are going to be noticeably troubled by the initially slower matchmaking are those who can't do the missions alone.  Allowing guaranteed host means that those high tier players (who I'd wager are more likely to have respectable hardware and internet) will be more willing to host and not only improve the physical state of matchmaking but also improve the experience for players who can more easily encounter and learn from the experienced players.  If the "everyone wants to be host" is really an issue, then just disable the ability of players to toggle host if their hardware specs are below recommended/minimum.  The change in specs is already going to improve Warframe's matchmaking considerably come February, but might as well go even further.

Monster Hunter World's SOS flare mechanic (of which majorities of problems are irrelevant in Warframe) show that the "everyone will host" problem is not a guarantee.  You have people who go into missions themselves (therefore the host) and pop SOS flares to get people to join.  Assuming you're running something decent, you're likely to have people join in quickly, because a lot of people can't be bothered to then tell the game what they want to hunt and then go kill it.  Especially in Warframe, where so much of the game is "alert popped up, click the mission on navigation," most players, especially newer players, likely just lock public on and run missions regardless of if anyone joins them.  A large portion of the star chart is in a stasis of 0 groups found, meaning you'll end up running the entire mission solo even if you're set to public.  In the case of the open world areas too, quite a few players actively attempt to leech off of other players.  In other words, they would rather not host so they can join in on a mission half-done and get the rewards (see the high rate of squad disband in Heist Phase 2 mission running).

Sure there are some potential downsides to making a toggle host, but unless any of them are worse than people getting rewards without being in a mission for 5 seconds, people not getting rewards despite entering a mission/practically completing a mission, and the gradually migration of players away from ever running "public" matchmaking, I'll support it all the way.  I neither want nor expect DE to attempt the dedicated server route, as that would only risk the integrity of Warframe as a free-to-play game, probably the most critical key to Warframe's success so far.

Edited January 30, 2019 by EiriMatsu

[(XBOX)KayAitch]

10 hours ago, SaidTheRogue said:

build yourself a proper gaming pc and leave that console thing to the kiddies,

I've built enough PCs at work to not want to spend my free time doing it too. Thanks though.

10 hours ago, SaidTheRogue said:

it would instead see a group of 4 players and hey this one has host=1 in a setting somewhere, or to that effect. ok easy enough, that guy = host. done and done. how hard is this? 

That isn't the matchmaking scenario - that's we've already go a group of 4 players in a squad and want to start a match. OK, though, in this simplified scenario: what happens when 2 or more people have host-only turned on? Do you block them from playing together? Do you randomly pick one of the host-only players as actual host and ignore the setting for the others? Or do you just kick the other host-only players from the match?

That's not the scenario I'm talking about being a problem - the issue is matchmaking: you and X other players are looking for a match at the same time. Some of those have better ping to each other - suppose you have 7 players, 3 in the EU with 20-60ms ping to each other, 4 in America with 50-80ms ping to each other, and about 150-250ms ping between the two groups. The matchmaking algorithm needs to be smart enough to group those 7 players into 2 sensible groups. That is not easy, even for this simplified example.

Then add that some are host-only, not necessarily evenly distributed (say 2 host-only in the US and none in the EU) - do we make the EU players join the US hosts to fill 2 teams or does ping win and one US host-only waits much longer?

Matchmaking code is never simple. That's why companies spend an absolute fortune on it.

10 hours ago, SaidTheRogue said:

its like you forgot this is a free to play game and the majority of ppl who play it dont put any money in

Yeah, the fact that Warframe is F2P makes no real difference. DE has to pay it's employees. They have families, rent/mortgages, debts, etc - all the things that mean even if they love a game they'll still need to get paid. Warframe would be gone if it stopped making money.

Sorry dude, but you're rather painfully naïve if you don't think this is about money.

10 hours ago, SaidTheRogue said:

granted, a more normal dedicated game server farm would be great but would also likely break the economics of the system.

Fortnight does it, Rocket League does it, lots of other F2P games do it. Cloud hosting is fairly cheap these days, to the point where it's cheaper to develop for it. I think the issue with Warframe going cloud based is the cost/risk of changing their hosting code, not the server costs.

8 hours ago, EiriMatsu said:

Runs triple eidolon capture quest, host disconnects half-way through hydrolyst, failure to secure new host, returns from mission without rewards.  Is that not damaged?  Queues up for Heist Phase 2, enters elevator, mission is completed before load-in.  Is that not damaged?  Queues up for Hydron to level gear, comes in near the end of wave 3.  Not damaged?  Queue in for a Fortuna bounty, bonus mission already failed before load-in.  The biggest issue with not being able to host is that you can't control what nonsense you're going to have to deal with upon loading in.

Yes. Warframe's matchmaking just isn't very good. They badly need to invest in it and it has a huge number of issues like all of these. It's easily the weakest part of the game.

I think the problem is that changes to network code are expensive and high risk. If they change it they're going to have to take devs off something else. If New War and Railjack slip into 2020 but we end broken host migrations I don't think that will help DE make money.

Given all that I think the one change they need to make is that when disconnected you keep everything from the mission, including XP bonuses, shards, arcanes, etc.

8 hours ago, EiriMatsu said:

Sure there are some potential downsides to making a toggle host, but unless any of them are worse than people getting rewards without being in a mission for 5 seconds,

I think this comes down to: I wanna be host so that I don't get these bugs. That's great for you, but doesn't help most players. For most players they either still have these bugs, or switch to host-only (which is a real problem if most players pick it).

DE always aim for the most players. That's why difficulty in Arbitrations and Fortuna was reduced - they want as many players as possible playing that content. A fix that helps an elite few of PC master race types just isn't what they spend their money on.

Meanwhile, they've spent a lot of money on a Switch port.

DE need to work on a bunch of matchmaking fixes, but they aren't going to invest in a workaround that adds the prisoner's dilemma to their already flakey algorithm.

[SaidTheRogue]

/sigh

prisoners dilemma doesnt apply, and the thing about everyone will set host-only doesnt apply, and so on. youve been given examples to the contrary. youre therefore just.. being contrarian.

he's holdin' out on us just to be mean and deny ppl things, boys.. we might hafta have ourselves a hangin' today.

[EiriMatsu]

On 2019-01-28 at 8:25 PM, (XB1)KayAitch said:

I think this comes down to: I wanna be host so that I don't get these bugs. That's great for you, but doesn't help most players. For most players they either still have these bugs, or switch to host-only (which is a real problem if most players pick it).

Ultimately, it's not a problem.  The prisoner dilemma isn't applicable here because it's not determining a singular result.  It's not a one-time, "Decide whether you are only host or willing to be hosted."  People can switch.  As I said prior, a lot of people probably don't care enough to bother with a setting like that whether it be for leeching, pure laziness, etc.  If the wait time is too long, people will just switch back and not use the function.  Long wait times are practically a guaranteed death to a game if uncontrolled (see Battleborn).  But, in this case, players are *choosing* to accept those wait times.  In addition, force-starting a mission is always a thing.  I've gone through tricaps alone because no one ended up joining my squad despite being on public.

Also, see:

On 2019-01-28 at 11:45 AM, EiriMatsu said:

That aside, implementation of this system would only be a problem at the start.  Players who can't do missions on their own just ultimately resign themselves to not being host or take the time to recruit a dedicated party.  DE's decision (whether it be an active stance or passive inaction) to forgo a lobby design in Warframe ultimately means that people who can do missions alone, especially those with high efficiency, end game equipment, are more likely play alone, wait for friends to play, or queue with other high MR, efficiency-built gear.  The people who are going to be noticeably troubled by the initially slower matchmaking are those who can't do the missions alone.  Allowing guaranteed host means that those high tier players (who I'd wager are more likely to have respectable hardware and internet) will be more willing to host and not only improve the physical state of matchmaking but also improve the experience for players who can more easily encounter and learn from the experienced players.  If the "everyone wants to be host" is really an issue, then just disable the ability of players to toggle host if their hardware specs are below recommended/minimum.

In other words:

1. Everyone switches to Auto-Host On.  No one gets any matchmaking (aka they have to run solo or wait a long time).  

2. People who can solo or wouldn't run public if this weren't an option would be consistent hosts, likely just force-starting the mission and letting anyone who joins mid-mission tag along.  People who can't solo would either have to wait for a long time or (inevitably) switch Auto-Host Off and join the previously mentioned dedicated hosts.

3. People whose computers can't handle hosting anyway likely can't solo most endgame content because of their performance issues would end up keeping Auto-Host Off because otherwise they have to run solo.  People whose computers can handle hosting end up the hosts and don't have problems finding matchmaking because those with inferior hardware/internet end up having to switch.

4. Seeing as majority of Warframe players probably aren't those willing to spend four digits on their gaming rigs and need their triple digit download speeds, this means the majority of players are more likely to end up not hosting.  This means the minority who have good rigs/internet will be more likely to host, reducing the number of disconnects and hosting-related bugs.  Those with conditions that result in bugs anyway regardless of host or client have essentially no change in the status quo, those with normal rigs are much less likely to have to deal with bugs, and people who have long stopped running public because of the bugs are more likely to be more open to public matchmaking because they know the worst they'll have to deal with is people who join DCing on their own and not disrupting the mission.

A truly open option to toggle Host, I'll admit, could probably end up the way you suggest.  Putting a hardware restriction/internet cap would heavily resolve that by putting in a restricted auto-host option.  If only a minority of the player-base is able to utilize that ability, then the prisoner dilemma can't occur.  Though, honestly, instead of making doing the toggle host option, if they'd just include hardware in the host priority like they do with latency, that would solve it too.

[(XBOX)KayAitch]

5 hours ago, SaidTheRogue said:

youve been given examples to the contrary.

You really haven't given me any examples. You tell me I'm wrong and that it's simple, I come back with a complex example with related questions, and you respond by telling me it's simple again.

Try answering some of the questions from my previous post.

5 hours ago, SaidTheRogue said:

he's holdin' out on us just to be mean and deny ppl things

*Sigh* did you read what I wrote at all? Is this sarcasm?

On the other hand @EiriMatsu cheers for a well thought out response...

3 hours ago, EiriMatsu said:

The prisoner dilemma isn't applicable here because it's not determining a singular result. 

That isn't a requirement of the pattern. You could apply it to an entire prison at once and the game theory would still apply. 

The prisoner's dilemma is just one example of a whole group of game theory problems with the same underlying problem: rational players cannot win in isolation. It's been applied to everything from evolutionary theory to elections. It doesn't literally have to be 2 prisoners with one life changing decision to apply.

3 hours ago, EiriMatsu said:

It's not a one-time, "Decide whether you are only host or willing to be hosted."  People can switch

Yes - the important thing is not that it's a one time choice. There are innumerable card and desktop games that rely on prisoner's dilemma variants and that you can play again and again. It applies to one matchmaking round - in that context you cannot switch: by the time you step out and change the setting and come back the players seeking a match will have changed.

3 hours ago, EiriMatsu said:

But, in this case, players are *choosing* to accept those wait times

I'd agree if this only affected players who choose host-only. However, depending on how many players choose this option (and I agree that it definitely won't be all) this will affect wait times for players that don't choose it.

3 hours ago, EiriMatsu said:

People whose computers can't handle hosting anyway likely can't solo most endgame content because of their performance issues would end up keeping Auto-Host Off because otherwise they have to run solo

I think this is making an assumption about hosting: that it requires an extra powerful machine and that weaker PCs getting to be host is the problem.

However, console players have the exact same problems where everyone is on the same hardware.

Hosting a game is not typically an operation that requires a lot of power. Back in the UT days (a previous game by DE) you could run loads of servers on a cut down machine that could barely run the game. You just needed a fast connection. In addition the machines that aren't host need to run the client, which takes a similar amount of processing.

What matters is latency, and the game already takes account of that - players with lower pings are more likely to be host.

4 hours ago, EiriMatsu said:

Seeing as majority of Warframe players probably aren't those willing to spend four digits on their gaming rigs and need their triple digit download speeds, this means the majority of players are more likely to end up not hosting. 

The majority are on consoles, just not the same console. They have the same issues PC players do with hosting, it's nowt to do with expensive kit.

It's not about network download speed - it's about latency. Hosting is all about the latter as the actual data sent back and forth isn't very large. You could have massive bandwidth to a beastly PC in LA, but get matchmade with 3 players in NY and it's better for one of them to be host because their ping to each other is less than the ping to you.

4 hours ago, EiriMatsu said:

A truly open option to toggle Host, I'll admit, could probably end up the way you suggest.  Putting a hardware restriction/internet cap would heavily resolve that by putting in a restricted auto-host option

I think you'd be entirely correct here if the hardware was the issue. 

Ping is more complex because it's not just your ping that matters. All 4 players in a match have to be taken into account - you could have a ping of 20ms to your local area, and they could all have 40ms, but it's the ping between the 4 of you that matters. The machine with the lowest mutual ping gets to be host, but that might also be the one furthest (and therefore slowest) for you.

This is also part of the reason why dedicated hosts are such a huge improvement - they run in big cloud sites with incredibly fast networks, but they can run in multiple locations with lower average latency to everyone.

 

[Steel_Rook]

On 2019-01-19 at 10:53 PM, (XB1)KayAitch said:

I think the problem is that everybody wants to be host. This means those with this on will wait longer for public matchmaking, and those with this off are far less likely to get to be the host.

Without wishing to be dismissive, arguments like these make me wonder if Warframe players have ever played another game. Plenty of locally-hosted games offer the ability to host your own lobby, start playing and have other people drop into it, and none of them have this issue. Payday 2, for instance, has explicit hosting. The host forms the lobby, picks the heist and difficulty and has authority to progress through the menus. That game has no host migration of any kind and I've never had issues finding random pubbies to join my lobby. This is not an actual problem in practice.

[000l000]

Le 28/12/2018 à 18:31, Wyrmius_Prime a dit :

Changing your matchmaking ping limit at the settings to the lowest possible value is a ''working'' bandaid for now, because it reduces the number of potential squads you can join.

It's not stupidity proof though as while using this method i joined a host with quite a decent ping and right in the middle of the mission ping went to 1700ms. Host was downloading while playing...

Main issue with hosting is that you have to rely upon individual players and as everyone knows, people aren't reliable.

[(XBOX)KayAitch]

2 hours ago, Steel_Rook said:

Without wishing to be dismissive, arguments like these make me wonder if Warframe players have ever played another game. Plenty of locally-hosted games offer the ability to host your own lobby, start playing and have other people drop into it, and none of them have this issue. 

Hosting a private match isn't what's being asked for, and isn't a problem. That would be an excellent feature and they should totally let you host and invite your friends.

The problem is host-only in public matchmaking - you get to be host and 3 randoms get put in your match.

1 hour ago, 000l000 said:

Main issue with hosting is that you have to rely upon individual players and as everyone knows, people aren't reliable.

To be fair: a lot of that won't be users' fault. Networks suck. Here in the UK we have a corrupted monopoly (a company called BT) that is amazingly poor but you have no other choice. In the US you have a small cartel (Comcast, Verizon, etc) with similar market control. Even big companies can't guarantee low latency because they have to go through monopolies that don't care. 

Your ping can go to 1700ms because the network company decided to nerf your (or their, or something inbetween) connection so they can handle more traffic elsewhere.

[Steel_Rook]

3 hours ago, (XB1)KayAitch said:

Hosting a private match isn't what's being asked for, and isn't a problem. That would be an excellent feature and they should totally let you host and invite your friends. The problem is host-only in public matchmaking - you get to be host and 3 randoms get put in your match.

Yes, that's precisely what I was discussing and precisely what games like Payday 2, L4D2, Vermintide and others already allow you to do without the issues presented. In fact, despite the constant calls of "Host Your Own Game" as a retort to bad host complaints, none of these games have had a shortage of random game joiners at least during their prime. Locally-hosted drop-in/drop-out co-op is not a novel concept and suffers from very few issues fundamental to its design.

Warframe's hosting system is similar to something like GTA 5, where the instance's back-end is hosted on one player's local machine, but the game's UI tries to "pretend" it's handled server-side. No indication is given to who the host is (and in the case of GTA, no indication is given for host migration), no individual kick option exists and no single player has control over core lobby functions. I personally don't see the point of this, especially in a game with functioning matchmaking. Let people who want to host host and reserve host migration for when they leave. It's going to be fine, because it's been fine in pretty much every game that's done it at least that I'm aware of.

[(XBOX)KayAitch]

1 hour ago, Steel_Rook said:

L4D2, Vermintide

I thought L4D and it sequels (including both Vermintide games) had dedicated hosts? They certainly did on X1 and that was particularly good for L4D (which I played to a slightly rediculous amount).

2 hours ago, Steel_Rook said:

Warframe's hosting system is similar to something like GTA 5

That surprises me. Warframe started with no money as a last ditch for DE - they designed it with no money for services and it still shows. GTAV was a multi-million triple-A from inception - if it relies on player hosting that's more than a bit shoddy.

2 hours ago, Steel_Rook said:

Let people who want to host host and reserve host migration for when they leave

I think it depends on the underlying algorithm - not all matchmaking is equal and I think Warframe's is both brute force and fairly dumb. It appears to just queue and join players, and picks hosts from something like lowest average ping. I think a more sophisticated algorithm could maybe handle it, but even then only when lots of concurrent players for a node.

It also really suffers from a paucity of local players, and gets really dumb if you have 3 close players and 1 far away player with a slower ping.

I think this is the wrong thing for them to be working on. Each client has a copy of the host's state, so renegotiating a new host should be trivial and near seamless. Even when it fails the absolute worst case scenario should be that you continue the mission you were already on solo. It's a fail in the first place that only the host has any network resilience, and its networks that suck (not some other player getting to be host).

Host migration should not be the exit-reload-rejoin process that it currently is. It should be one client gets promoted to host, 2 other clients stall while they sync to it, you see a message and maybe jump position slightly and lose any local status timers not shared with the host (like focus). They could even give the failed host the option to rejoin as a new client, as 9/10 they will have lost a network connection rather than actually crashed.

I'd far rather they sorted out that than added host restrictions.

Can we all agree that's what we really want? Never get kicked to lose everything, always be able to finish the match?

[Steel_Rook]

1 hour ago, (XB1)KayAitch said:

I thought L4D and it sequels (including both Vermintide games) had dedicated hosts? They certainly did on X1 and that was particularly good for L4D (which I played to a slightly rediculous amount).

L4D2 has the option for dedicated servers, yes - I believe Valve-hosted ones, but I'm not sure. It's the option it defaults to and one you have to dig into lobby settings to change. It does, however, have a traditional old-school "Local" option which hosts the game on the lobby starter's machine. Due to the existence of that option, the game's mandatory vote-kick system is kind of superfluous as I - as a host - can always just quit or even cut individual players' connections.

 

1 hour ago, (XB1)KayAitch said:

That surprises me. Warframe started with no money as a last ditch for DE - they designed it with no money for services and it still shows. GTAV was a multi-million triple-A from inception - if it relies on player hosting that's more than a bit shoddy.

That's surprisingly common in AAA games, for some reason. Not only does local hosting indeed trust the connection to users' shoddy internet causing skipping and hitching (which GTA 5 is VERY prone to), it also opens the game up to a hilarious host of cheats and exploits. A large majority of my interactions in public lobbies involve people spawning cages around me, spawning camp fires inside my body, turning up as a level 2000+ character, giving everyone in the game millions of dollars and so on. For Honour had a similar system, though I've not had a lot of experience with that one. Hosting for a popular multiplayer game is one of the major costs in old-school subscription world MMOs. I don't have exact figures, but it's expensive.

 

1 hour ago, (XB1)KayAitch said:

I think this is the wrong thing for them to be working on. Each client has a copy of the host's state, so renegotiating a new host should be trivial and near seamless. Even when it fails the absolute worst case scenario should be that you continue the mission you were already on solo. It's a fail in the first place that only the host has any network resilience, and its networks that suck (not some other player getting to be host).

Without wishing to be overly critical, Warframe's network sync code is fairly shoddy. A LOT of stuff doesn't sync at all and connection hitches are very likely to produce desync of varying severity. Anything from a character playing the wrong animation to a door failing to open (Kuva Spy C has one that never syncs) to in extreme cases one player's movement becoming completely disconnected from the host. I had a friend of mine from Australia who disconnected from me like that and was completely "invisible" to the enemy. Because I was hosting, the AI would only target him based on his location on my screen, which was "stuck 10 rooms ago." On his screen, he was moving just fine and could kill them without any issues because damage is not resolved with the host but directly communicated. If his client tells me he did damage, my game accepts this even though from my perspective he's a mile away and out of LoS. And that's not even mentioning the Octavia quest's jumping puzzle which entirely fails to sync. For a drop-in client, notes don't render, the rotating laser doesn't render, music doesn't play and note states drop out of sync to the point of unreliability.

The problem is that all clients don't actually hold a copy of the host's state. I don't know this for a fact, obviously, but I'm basing this on how other games resolve these things. Typically, the host is the only player who has any meaningful information about the AI and the game's current state. Payday 2 used what's known as "husks" - empty shells which represent the location and animation information of an enemy but have no AI attached to them - to push from host to clients in order to sync enemies, and those could be WILDLY out of place due to packet loss and sync bugs. Worse is when game state becomes corrupted. WH40K: Space Marine is very prone to this. Host migration often causes Exterminatus scripts to fail to trigger, making missions uncompletable as necessary enemies just don't spawn. Warframe itself has a "Fixed X bug during host migration" entry in most of its recent patch notes.

I'm not saying host migration is bad, just that it's a non-trivial problem to solve and something I'd personally avoid doing behind the scenes unless it's absolutely necessary, i.e. when the host disconnects. Warframe does attempt to do it for connection speed reasons, as well, but that seems to only ever be attempted on first load into a mission where the game state will be reset anyway. I personally tend to favour explicit hosting for locally hosted games, even if it does lead to "my lobby my rules" and "HYOG" issues. Obviously, that's personal preference.

[SaidTheRogue]

...theres also the problem of his counterargument to this being based on far too many assumptions/suppositions. he's merely taking it for granted that, upon inception, ta da, EVERYone will play with this feature enabled.

lets say in some alternate universe that actually turns out to be true (it wont); in such a case, no one can complain, itd be a case of.. bed made, case closed. if we ask for something to proactively deal with the host crappiness, and we employ it, and it has certain downsides or tradeoffs.. so be it.

the benefits clearly outweigh the negatives. we should all be standing behind this one.. at worst, as time passes and MAYBE too many hiccups are observed, DE could then after the fact patch in some limitation of its use, something like player X can only enable this if their latency is below a certain threshhold, or certain hardware requirements, or both. which i could see the teenage masses complaining about, but which is entirely fair, i suppose.

with my 200mbps line and high end gaming rig that i built myself, i'm willing and able to shoulder your match. come to me, my child.. i am the truth and the way, dun dun dunnnnnn

hahahaha

now all i need is the active host feature which we've described, ad nauseam.

[(XBOX)KayAitch]

9 hours ago, SaidTheRogue said:

he's merely taking it for granted that, upon inception, ta da, EVERYone will play with this feature enabled.

I'm not taking that for granted...

On 2019-01-20 at 7:49 PM, (XB1)KayAitch said:

And you don't need 100%, just 25% would be enough to start damaging matchmaking, as once you hit that only people who select host-only will ever get to be host, and in every full match you need the other 75% of players to not be hosts.

 

On 2019-01-21 at 12:47 PM, (XB1)KayAitch said:

Above 25% you start really struggling to get anyone a full match because the pool of people you can play with goes down.

Imaging 4 people are looking for a match. If 1 is host-only then they're always host and nobody else is, maybe you're right and they don't notice. If 2 host-only then they wait (as you say) but the other 2 players now only get 3 in a match. Everyone now finds it harder to get a full match, and the moaning on here will be about never getting matchmaking, not about hosts.

You think that because your machine is great everything will be better if you are host:

9 hours ago, SaidTheRogue said:

with my 200mbps line and high end gaming rig that i built myself, i'm willing and able to shoulder your match. 

But that isn't how it works, 200Mbps doesn't matter, ping to those you're playing with is what matters.

On 2019-01-30 at 10:25 AM, (XB1)KayAitch said:

It's not about network download speed - it's about latency.

And your beastly hardware doesn't matter - you're not getting host migrations because their PC can't handle really old network code that can run on consoles.

On 2019-01-30 at 10:25 AM, (XB1)KayAitch said:

However, console players have the exact same problems where everyone is on the same hardware.

Hosting a game is not typically an operation that requires a lot of power. Back in the UT days (a previous game by DE) you could run loads of servers on a cut down machine that could barely run the game. You just needed a fast connection. In addition the machines that aren't host need to run the client, which takes a similar amount of processing.

I seem to be repeating myself a lot here, so at this point just believe what you want to, you're going to anyway.

[(XBOX)KayAitch]

12 hours ago, Steel_Rook said:

The problem is that all clients don't actually hold a copy of the host's state. I don't know this for a fact, obviously, but I'm basing this on how other games resolve these things

I'd pretty much agree with this assumption - the host holds AI and mission timers, and the clients hold everythings location.

It think it probably can't be seamless.

However, there is enough information in each client to continue playing. Some enemies will suddenly appear or disappear. Some players will jump to other parts of the map. Everyone's focus and ability timers will reset.

But, the assets are all there. The AI is really dumb and can surely be loaded into the enemy shells. It should be possible without reloading the entire instance and resetting everyone.

12 hours ago, Steel_Rook said:

Warframe does attempt to do it for connection speed reasons, as well, but that seems to only ever be attempted on first load into a mission where the game state will be reset anyway.

I've seen that happen - I wonder how many games are lost because it's trying to migrate the host when it shouldn't?

12 hours ago, Steel_Rook said:

not saying host migration is bad, just that it's a non-trivial problem to solve and something I'd personally avoid doing behind the scenes unless it's absolutely necessary, i.e. when the host disconnects

I suspect you're right there. I suspect that the creaky matchmaking code is hard to change in any way.

I still reckon the best short term and easy fix is to just let you keep all your stuff on disconnect.