Dedicated Servers PLEASE

[Soulden]

6 minutes ago, Nubescu said:

The ping change is not works as others said because you still can get ping 500+ persons and instances even you changed to 100-150. For me it is 100 but still if not I am the host then I often going to get high ping hosts and most of my public games are laggy. A better netcode could solve issues but currently they does not work on it. The only result when you change your ping limit lower the less possible teams who plays. 

And even then, the way their netcode is, it will still force you into a high ping host for the sake of not making you wait 30+ minutes for a squad that meets your parameters.

I agree with you, they have to improve on what they have. Trying to get them to dump their assets into servers is obviously a no go, even OP says, it has been 5 years. They haven't done it by now and they still gaining costumers, why should they at all?

Edited February 1, 2019 by Souldend78

[FlusteredFerret]

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

1. Buying hardware isnt a thing these days for most companies, nor are the costs very high for server farm rent. If most every other online game can do it, so can DE with WF.

2. That shouldnt really be an issue though because it is already possible to set up dedicated player run servers for conclave. Aswell as hubs already running on dedicated servers. So the structure is there, they just dont have the equipment to provide a dedicated service outside of non-combat hubs.

Aslong as Path of Exile is running on dedicated servers there is really no excuse as to why Warframe shouldnt do the same thing.

 

1. Most other online games were designed from the start to run on dedicated servers and the costs would have been built into the business model. Not the case with WF.

2. 1% of the player base play PvP - thats a hell of a smaller requirement than the main game, therefore easier to manage.

 

[Genesix6]

I just love getting host migration, 

[(PSN)robotwars7]

22 hours ago, Sir_Carl said:

The game is 5 years old and doing great why is this not implemented yet 😕

because it's expensive. but hey, if you have the money to spare, please, by all means donate to DE, you'd be hailed forever as a hero among the warframe community, we might even name a new Node or Relay after you! 

the only feasible way I could see DE being able to afford this while still maintaining their current release pattern would be to go from F2P to a subscription service. most people would rather drink Kubrow Urine than let that happen, if you catch my meaning. so i definitely won't expect Dedicated Servers to happen any time in the future. P2P is like Democracy: it has plenty downsides, but we just simply haven't found anything better yet.

[peterc3]

23 hours ago, Sir_Carl said:

The game is 5 years old and doing great why is this not implemented yet 😕

The game is 5 years old and it's doing great. Nothing in this topic or any of the other topics yelling at DE to eat the costs of dedicated servers have seemingly convinced DE to do it. This will be the one that does it, right?

6 hours ago, Nubescu said:

A better netcode

Do you even know what it is you are referring to or what?

[Carnage2K4]

3 hours ago, peterc3 said:

Do you even know what it is you are referring to or what?

What I love most about the 'Netcode issue' games have is the wiki page, it's so apt:

"Netcode is a blanket term for anything that somehow relates to networking in online games; netcode is a term most commonly used by gamers when discussing synchronization issues between clients and servers. The actual elements of a game engine that can cause so-called "netcode issues" include, among other things, latency, lag compensation or the lack thereof, simulation errors, and network issues between the client and server that are completely out of the game's hands. Netcode as a term tends to be used only in the gaming community, as it is not recognized as an actual computer science term."

Seems to amount to players telling DE to "get better internet".

Edited February 2, 2019 by Carnage2K4

[LupisV0lk]

15 hours ago, Diarist said:

 is hilariously out of touch.

Think that;s you there buddy. To think that DE can just simply do dedicated servers in a snap is a joke, let alone what timeframe they'd have.

Your out of touch with reality, plain and simple. It's too much effort on their end to get the game infrastructure suited for it, let alone the astronomical costs it'd incur. So yeah, it's too costly.

[SneakyErvin]

15 hours ago, FlusteredFerret said:

1. Most other online games were designed from the start to run on dedicated servers and the costs would have been built into the business model. Not the case with WF.

2. 1% of the player base play PvP - thats a hell of a smaller requirement than the main game, therefore easier to manage.

 

The work has been done for WF already when they introduced the option to host dedicated servers for the players. All DE needs to really do is rent or own servers to provide us with. If it works for the PvP part it should be no problem introducing the same type of dedicated servers for PvE, although in that case hosted by DE themselves instead of players.

Conclave isnt a seperate game with seperate coding outside of balance, if it works there, it works for PvE.

1%, 10%, 99%, it really doesnt matter, all that matters is the amount of servers available to cover the playerbase. And as I said, DE can cut corners because they currently dont really host solo-play in any real way. You pretty much play the mission, then upon extraction the account progress gets saved on their database servers.

We're marching on towards the year 2020, the whole "but it is expensive" reason met its expiration date around 15 years ago.

[Diarist]

8 hours ago, LupisV0lk said:

Think that;s you there buddy. To think that DE can just simply do dedicated servers in a snap is a joke, let alone what timeframe they'd have.

Your out of touch with reality, plain and simple. It's too much effort on their end to get the game infrastructure suited for it, let alone the astronomical costs it'd incur. So yeah, it's too costly.

[SneakyErvin]

31 minutes ago, Diarist said:

That is the oddest thing I've ever seen that involves Nekrons.

[FlusteredFerret]

9 hours ago, Carnage2K4 said:

What I love most about the 'Netcode issue' games have is the wiki page, it's so apt:

"Netcode is a blanket term for anything that somehow relates to networking in online games; netcode is a term most commonly used by gamers when discussing synchronization issues between clients and servers. The actual elements of a game engine that can cause so-called "netcode issues" include, among other things, latency, lag compensation or the lack thereof, simulation errors, and network issues between the client and server that are completely out of the game's hands. Netcode as a term tends to be used only in the gaming community, as it is not recognized as an actual computer science term."

Seems to amount to players telling DE to "get better internet".

Indeed.

I think some are getting "netcode" and "optimisation" mixed up.

Game code can be better optimised, so that it runs better on lower spec machines...but DE can't program better connectivity into their game.

 

Which is also one of the things dedicated servers won't guarantee. While it would fix the host migration bug that frustrates so many of us, it is still quite possible for players in certain locations to experience high ping rates, lag / packet loss etc.

Which is something DE will doubtless factor into their decision, whether to get dedicated servers or not. Will it be worth the cost, to fix one specific issue, while parts of the player base may continue to suffer a poor playing experience?

[SneakyErvin]

2 hours ago, FlusteredFerret said:

Indeed.

I think some are getting "netcode" and "optimisation" mixed up.

Game code can be better optimised, so that it runs better on lower spec machines...but DE can't program better connectivity into their game.

Which is also one of the things dedicated servers won't guarantee. While it would fix the host migration bug that frustrates so many of us, it is still quite possible for players in certain locations to experience high ping rates, lag / packet loss etc.

Which is something DE will doubtless factor into their decision, whether to get dedicated servers or not. Will it be worth the cost, to fix one specific issue, while parts of the player base may continue to suffer a poor playing experience?

Dedicated servers would solve it though aslong as they follow what other companies do, have hubs across the globe. They are out there to be utilized by companies that need them. GGG has servers all over the place, several options within europe and the US alone.

Even the parts that would still have trouble would have a better experience than they do now, because the hardware used would be optimal and not random Joe123's potato of doom that also downloads kinky stuff in the background.

Dedicated servers makes the experience night and day. Even with perfect ping in WF you can have S#&$ connection to the host because he simply has too much stuff going on at the same time on his PC. That is something the game will never ever be able to recognize. It simply checks the latency between players and lumps them together. That would never be an issue with actual official servers. It would also weed out the issues of extremely fluctuating connections that the current matchmaker often misses. It may do the ping check and get a good result from player X right at that moment, but in reality it simply cought him at a good moment. So what the system thought was "ok" according to ping limits invloved you get shoved into that session, problem is, that guy who pinged 50ms to the system sits at 500ms in reality and sometime fluctuates up to 1000ms. He wont notice the problem, but the other 3 will.

The people with issues would have the issues stop at the ping, which can be overcome in PvE games. They would not suffer the "I have 150ms but it acts like 1500ms" that are currently extremely common in WF due to the peer-to-peer S#&$. I've spent around 12 years or so playing on US servers in various MMOs while living in Sweden, I've had nowhere close to the issues WF presents me with in either of those games.

[SilentMobius]

On 2019-02-01 at 3:12 AM, Sir_Carl said:

The game is 5 years old and doing great why is this not implemented yet 😕

Because it's not part of the design or cost model of the game, at a fundamental level.

There is literally no upside to this for DE it's just a massive money pit. that doesn't even help without massive ongoing investment in geo-distributed servers and bandwidth.

All of a sudden every Warframe mission played costs DE money, It's insanity.

[SneakyErvin]

1 hour ago, SilentMobius said:

Because it's not part of the design or cost model of the game, at a fundamental level.

There is literally no upside to this for DE it's just a massive money pit. that doesn't even help without massive ongoing investment in geo-distributed servers and bandwidth.

All of a sudden every Warframe mission played costs DE money, It's insanity.

People keep saying this and are completely ignoring that the tech is already there due to conclave, DE just needs to shell out the cash for actual server rent. People also ignore that Path of Exile, with roughly the same business model, player count and content development rate (even slightly higher) have no issues with dedicated servers across the world.

PoE currently have. 3 US, 5 EU, 1 RU, 1 BR, 1 Aussie, 1 Singaporean and 1 JP server to hold their playerbase.

[peterc3]

47 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

the tech is already there due to conclave

Pretend dedicated servers are not real dedicated servers.

47 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

DE just needs to shell out the cash for actual server rent

This is a frighteningly common thing for the players to tell the devs to do and just as silly. Why don't you pay DE to do it?

48 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Path of Exile, with roughly the same business model

Is it the same or not? What are the differences that might make this comparison apt or completely wrong?

[LupisV0lk]

7 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

That is the oddest thing I've ever seen that involves Nekrons.

You need to see "If the emperor has a text to speech device" it's got that and more~

[SilentMobius]

13 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

People keep saying this and are completely ignoring that the tech is already there due to conclave, DE just needs to shell out the cash for actual server rent. People also ignore that Path of Exile, with roughly the same business model, player count and content development rate (even slightly higher) have no issues with dedicated servers across the world.

PoE currently have. 3 US, 5 EU, 1 RU, 1 BR, 1 Aussie, 1 Singaporean and 1 JP server to hold their playerbase.

I'm not ignoring anything, the comparisons simply don't apply.

Have you looked as how many consecutive hosts the conclave servers can handle? It does not scale well because, as I mentioned, it wasn't designed to be mass-hosted.

PoE was, designed to be server hosted, and has orders of magnitude less network data synced and less computation performed, it's effectively 2D with trivial physics, item and collision modeling.

So to reiterate:

14 hours ago, SilentMobius said:

Because it's not part of the design or cost model of the game, at a fundamental level.

 

Edited February 3, 2019 by SilentMobius

[SneakyErvin]

3 hours ago, SilentMobius said:

I'm not ignoring anything, the comparisons simply don't apply.

Have you looked as how many consecutive hosts the conclave servers can handle? It does not scale well because, as I mentioned, it wasn't designed to be mass-hosted.

PoE was, designed to be server hosted, and has orders of magnitude less network data synced and less computation performed, it's effectively 2D with trivial physics, item and collision modeling.

So to reiterate:

 

Warframe will still not be mass hosted. It will only host group activities. So there wont be a load on the server through the players playing solo etc. And with 15 or server farms across the world to handle it, much like PoE, it wouldnt really be much of an issue. They could probably get by having less even since not everyone would use them just by being logged on.

 

16 hours ago, peterc3 said:

Pretend dedicated servers are not real dedicated servers.

This is a frighteningly common thing for the players to tell the devs to do and just as silly. Why don't you pay DE to do it?

Is it the same or not? What are the differences that might make this comparison apt or completely wrong?

1. True, they arent real dedicated servers. Try to explain that to the rabid PvPers.

2. Not really how it works if a game wants to progress.

3. Same business model. Obviously different items to buy. You actually have less need to buy stuff in PoE if you play "casually".

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

Seriously, having looked at Path of Exile gameplay footage and Warframe, anyone who can't figure out that they're trying really hard to compare an apple with an orange is probably just willfully deluding themselves. 

 

Stop doing that. 

 

Second, it's one thing to claim, "they have lots of money they can afford it" and "geographically diverse dedicated servers for hundreds of thousands of players, with acceptable bandwidth is not so expensive", but I am going to guess that anyone saying those things have never actually run the numbers. If you can't provide a breakdown showing that you know what you are talking about, I'm going to go ahead and operate under the assumption that my guess is correct. 

You can keep doing it all you want as it'll make it easier for the rest of us to follow who has that view. 

Edited February 3, 2019 by (PS4)guzmantt1977

[HugintheCrow]

9 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Seriously, having looked at Path of Exile gameplay footage and Warframe, anyone who can't figure out that they're trying really hard to compare an apple with an orange is probably just willfully deluding themselves. 

 

Stop doing that. 

 

Second, it's one thing to claim, "they have lots of money they can afford it" and "geographically diverse dedicated servers for hundreds of thousands of players, with acceptable bandwidth is not so expensive", but I am going to guess that anyone saying those things have never actually run the numbers. If you can't provide a breakdown showing that you know what you are talking about, I'm going to go ahead and operate under the assumption that my guess is correct. 

You can keep doing it all you want as it'll make it easier for the rest of us to follow who has that view. 

All they did was say "it's not expensive". Yeah, agreed.

But all you did was say "It is expensive".

Now why would anyone believe you more than them? DE not doing something is not proof they can't do it. They could have enough money/resources and not want to shell out on something they might feel is unneeded.

My point is, you can't use "It's too expensive" as an argument.  Not until you

12 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

provide a breakdown showing that you know what you are talking about,

because otherwise,

12 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

I'm going to go ahead and operate under the assumption that my guess is correct. 

And my guess is, DE could implement some sort of dedicated servers, but chooses not to, due to them thinking t's not needed, or they simply don't think it's worth it. Not because they don't have money. Cause they clearly do have a lot of money. That they choose to use differently, which is totally fine by me.

[llls1cKb0ylll]

Yea its about time they put regional dedicated servers, I can't belive they can't aford em, idk talk to valve, they provide servers for steam games, if they can make conclave/lunaro dedicated server clients why they couldn't make it for the rest of the content?

Edited February 3, 2019 by llls1cKb0ylll

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

3 minutes ago, HugintheCrow said:

All they did was say "it's not expensive". Yeah, agreed.

But all you did was say "It is expensive".

Now why would anyone believe you more than them? DE not doing something is not proof they can't do it. They could have enough money/resources and not want to shell out on something they might feel is unneeded.

My point is, you can't use "It's too expensive" as an argument.  Not until you

because otherwise,

And my guess is, DE could implement some sort of dedicated servers, but chooses not to, due to them thinking t's not needed, or they simply don't think it's worth it. Not because they don't have money. Cause they clearly do have a lot of money. That they choose to use differently, which is totally fine by me.

Fascinating. Doesn't work for several reasons, but still fascinating.

Trying to shift the burden of proof is all that you have done, which is again just an indication that you have no idea if it is expensive or not. Secondly, that's my first post on this thread. I made no claim, just pointed out how the folks making the claim are pulling it out of thin air, or bodily orifices not generally known for doing good cost-benefit analysis. 

No a single dedicated server space isn't going to be hugely expensive. But 25,000+ to 100,000 instances, all required to have very low latency and very high bandwidth caps spread across the globe... Might just cost more than I'd like to shell out at the moment. 

 

Also this isn't the first time this has been discussed. Quite a few people have shown their math. If you want to make the claim that it's inexpensive, do so. But actually do it. This isn't middle school, nobody's required to help you do your own homework anymore. 

[llls1cKb0ylll]

En 1/2/2019 a las 3:19, Pinegulf dijo:

How about: Monthly subscription to access dedicated servers? 

And if one wants to be nice, group containing one or more subscriber all get bump to serer. 

Situation would not be worse and you get what pay for. 

I would pay a monthly subscription to support dedicated servers, I used to play defiance and used to pay like 15 bucks a month for "patron pass" that gave you some boosters for "resources", xp, and other stuff, just give me 30 days boosters and some endo/kuva or some store disscounts and ill happily pay for it.

[Dabnician]

On 2019-02-01 at 1:12 AM, trst said:

DE can't just flip a switch and have dedicated servers. There is a lot of infrastructure, employees, and money required for them to start hosting their own or a large sum of money for DE to rent servers but then there is a middle man that could create problems out of DE's control.

Also dedicated servers won't magically fix every connection problem as everyone would be forced to deal with whatever connection quality DE gives them which could likely degrade the average overall connection quality of players.

 

Also if you go into a pub and ever expect to go past one rotation you're knowingly putting yourself at risk of disconnect/migration problems. Regardless of whether or not DE should make dedicated servers if you're already afflicted and bothered by connection problems then it's your own fault to continue to take that risk until you or DE does something about it (and yes there are things you can do to fix/mitigate these issues as a player).

Amazon web services go Google it and read up about it, they can so it and they can even profit off it by just allow players to rent them from them.(I'm not going into detail cause honestly this community doesn't understand things like how accounting works) 

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

1 hour ago, Dabnician said:

.(I'm not going into detail cause honestly this community doesn't understand things like how accounting works) 

You might be unpleasantly surprised. And please, go ahead. Some of us will probably find it interesting.