Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

(XB1)DavidRyder 74

Warframe is successful enough to have dedicated servers

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, (XB1)DavidRyder 74 said:

I'm not going to say much, everyone thinks like this.

Host migration is disgusting, having to endure another player's bad connection is disgusting and the fact that Digital Extremes is making hundreds of millions per year gives no excuse to not having dedicated servers.

This is even more important with the squad link, imagine that same Tennocon gameplay but with disconnections and host migrations.

I would be disappointed if Digital Extremes launches Empyrean without dedicated servers. The nightmare of having a consistent gameplay getting cut off by a crappy networking system.

Come on Digital Extremes, you're even upgrading your engine and spending millions on TennoCon, we all know this should be your next jump.

Not just that, there is the problem with NAT-Strict from people connection that even port forward won`t solve because of this Peer 2 Peer model, only solution is with a VPN. Located Servers would be great. Dauntless has less players probably and had local servers even for South America since open beta started..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just did defensemission andit bugged when the team should of gotten back to orbiter...

So it stuck forever now and if I close the game I will lose everything from this mission.

GG DE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dedicated servers aren't the magical "fix all" that people believe they will be.

Dedicated servers at best will let people with with already good connections rarely see a migration (as they already do), will likely lower the connection quality for people with good connections already, and at worse make the game unavailable to people in certain parts of the world and/or with poor connections already.

 

And as far as the whole cost issue is concerned the point isn't whether or not DE can afford it but if the cost is worth it to DE; if it was wouldn't they have done it already? Especially considering the mountain of cash people assume they're sitting on.

Also out of the roughly 50k~ players that play every day on Steam alone how common are these migration issues to begin with? Considering how often and strongly this community exhibits negativity bias it seems more likely that the problem has been grossly exaggerated and/or that the people who complain about this are the ones with connection issues on their end to begin with.

 

But ultimately this topic is a waste of the forums time. Generic complaints like this already don't accomplish anything (this is GD not the feedback forums) and the issue is something that requires a lot of consideration from DE alone to decide if such a change is worth it. The work and cost, regardless of whether or not they can afford it, is such that doing it just because the community asked for it isn't going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 2 Stunden schrieb peterc3:

Dedicated servers won't make lag disappear. It would make it worse for some. Doors are due to lag, so that goes along with it.

Dedicated servers aren't a guaranteed fix, but they are a guaranteed expense.

Uhm I don't see the point in arguing against servers from a technical point of view. Of cause it wouldn't be a fix for everyone. Sucks to live on the Cook Islands at this point. I would also bet that anyone who's running a serious business won't start setting up servers by googling: "how to get a dedicated server".

And I doubt that the door problem comes with lag (latency) otherwise that god damn things would open after 0,5 seconds with a ping of 500. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve worked on the Internet since before it was actually the Internet.  P2P actually has many benefits...it turns every endpoint into a dedicated server.  Having actual dedicated servers is crazy expensive, like you couldn’t imagine.

But I agree, host migrations are wildly painful and disruptive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, (PS4)dtdionne said:

I’ve worked on the Internet since before it was actually the Internet.  P2P is actually has many benefits...it turns every endpoint into a dedicated server.  Having actual dedicated servers is crazy expensive, like you couldn’t imagine.

The problem with P2P for me is NAT-Strict because of ISPs. We can set the minimum latency the host can have when we join mission, but that thing also fails sometimes, need some rework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent point, NAT and/or PAT, while it saved the Internet, it does complicate things considerably...without a doubt.  As does any port filtering anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did sniff bungies traffic and it appears they use a hybrid system of sorts.  It was odd.  I considered dissecting and decoding their stream but it was just way too much effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, Dedicated servers at this point are probably way out of scope for them at this point, to much resources would have to be pulled into setting them up and only for a very marginal gain. As annoying as bad connections are at least its an every so often occurrence, and not a 'every single mission' occurrence that might happen if they localize there servers far away from you... 

the main system I would hope they find a way to implement would be, the ability to continue a mission solo should the host fail to migrate. The fact it auto kick/fails the mission instantly upon that happening and you lose everything, is the main reason people outcry about this in the first place. Having the ability to say 'yes id like to finish this alone' when things go south (the rare but still occurring times that they do) to keep the rewards would be a god send, and also make long term Survival/Defense/Excavations not nearly as nerve wracking....(and not make feel nearly as bad when i see a person suddenly blip from said mission type and i sit there going like 'ohh god, ohhh mann ohh god ooh man!') 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When people talk about dedicated servers, it's always just about "go, get some". Nobody talks about the "where will the servers be placed".

Will DE only have servers in Canada? Great for Canada and the US. S#&$ty for everyone else.
Will DE have servers in all the regions they support? Then how will I be able to get in touch with people that are not from EU?
If I wanted to play Warframe late at night when other regions are at midday, then dedicated server would lock me out of parties. Great.

Do I understand why servers seem interesting? Sure. Would they bring us a whole bunch of new problems? Hell yeah, they would.

And let's be real here:
It doesn't need a crybaby from the community to bring up a subject like dedicated servers. You can be sure DE talked about it already. And they decided that there is no point to that at the moment.
So another thread from another crybaby won't change DE's mind. Hell, nobody will bring anything up that will change DE's mind. They will make it happen, if and when they want to.
And discussing this further won't lead to anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could anyone defend not having dedicated servers? You're seriously defending making the game worse. And dont give me the "oh but the cost!!". If the game For Honor(currently only 3-5k playercount on steam) got dedicated servers warframe has NO excuse. Warframe has 52 thousand active players on steam right now and its not even peak time. Ive also lost countless items due to host migration and teamates crappy internet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CyBerMaNcr said:

How could anyone defend not having dedicated servers? You're seriously defending making the game worse. And dont give me the "oh but the cost!!". If the game For Honor(currently only 3-5k playercount on steam) got dedicated servers warframe has NO excuse. Warframe has 52 thousand active players on steam right now and its not even peak time.

But costs are a valid argument.
For Honor only needs to support 3-5k players. Even bad servers are capable of handling this.
DE needs way better servers then this for their player count. And again, they have to place them all around the world. If they don't, then having servers would acutally make the game worse because of horrible laggs.

Just tell me this:
If servers are so easy to support, and so cheap, why didn't DE already make it happen? What, you have no answer to that? Figures...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JackHargreav said:

Ah. I missed the server posts so much. Oh wait I didn't.

But at least it's not a "Missing Twitch reward" post.

If we had dedicated servers we wouldn't have the problem with the missing rewards. Where is my Nekros? Also...something something grrrr nightwave.

- Literally Everyone, probably.

 

There, fixed it for ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they can afford it, you need to take into account the question of 'can they afford it and the same level of content that they've been putting out?'

Because believe you me, I've watched a game go down because of such a money sink. It's a slow and horrible death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, CyBerMaNcr said:

How could anyone defend not having dedicated servers? You're seriously defending making the game worse. And dont give me the "oh but the cost!!". If the game For Honor(currently only 3-5k playercount on steam) got dedicated servers warframe has NO excuse. Warframe has 52 thousand active players on steam right now and its not even peak time. Ive also lost countless items due to host migration and teamates crappy internet

And you know who owns For Honor? Ubisoft, a not-so-minor AAA gaming company.

Whatever setup they're using for their servers already had their costs paid and/or is incredibly cheap with whatever deals they undoubtedly have with their hosts.

Plus any costs maintaining their servers comes with can also be fronted by any of their other games, upcoming games, and investors.

 

Comparing them to DE who don't have any such infrastructure nor are they in the business of actively making other games to fund themselves. The last game they tried to make themselves got shut down in the beta phase and the last two they partnered with/helped make had one also shut down in it's beta and the other had it's multiplayer servers shut down permanently may of last year.

So, yes, the cost is a concern and attempting to compare DE to Ubisoft is honestly laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I searched up Leyou, the parent group of DE. From the annual report of 2018 (for the year ended 31 Dec 2018, p6 of the financial report we have the following.

https://imgur.com/PlFPH2C

 

Here are some numbers,

Leyou's total revenue in 2018 was 227.720 million, gross profit is 141.487 million (so a 62.13% gross margin)

Considering how significant warframe's revenue is compared to the entire group, it is likely that warframe's gross margin is reasonably similar to the overall group. In this case, my estimation would be that the gross profit of warframe in the year ended 2018 is roughly 120 million (+-10 million). Over a hundred million? Very likely, hundreds of million? Nope.

 

Now, the question is, what will be the aggregated cost (where we use PV calculation on the constant / maintenance cost) of implementing dedicated servers for every region, and how much revenue will they get from this decision. I would be interested to know if anyone have a good approximation for these values. I personally would guess that for popular regions, the cost would still exceed the extra revenue generated from having a dedicated server but not by a significantly large margin, however for other regions, it would be an issue.

-----

Although to be honest, a much cheaper / easier solution would be to add in the options for people to "always be host" and "never be host", while they are still flawed, I could see the the benefits of such would certainly outweight the comparatively low costs of implementing such.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, as long as the server is located in Australia. Preferably a block or two down from my house. And if I can directly fiber into the server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, dedicated servers come with way more issues than allot of people think, they might need to work on some of the networking quirks though. It also depends on what you mean by dedicated servers. If you want them to host the games, just no. if you want them to hold a save state of the current game and give you the rewards should a fatal error occur then TOATS. Peer to Peer benefits the players WAY more than the devs in allot of ways, if you're having bad connectivity issues can I reccomend setting the ping limit just a tad lower, saved me allot of headaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOTRO II better have dedicated servers. PVP may be better served with host though, but open world pvp wouldnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see the ability for clans to be able to host their own dedicated servers for the PVE. It would also solve the problem and cost DE nothing but the cost to update the current dedicated server software available for pvp. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*insert San Andreas meme here*

  1. saying you speak for everyone will never work on the forums op far too many people you could say majority and even that is iffy 
  2. Someone magically knows DE total income to demand the change
  3. blissfully ignoring the problems the transition can cause and the over all nightmare it could be 
  4. cost of buying server and then on going maintenance over time would burn into over all profit 
  5. this horse isn't even being beaten any more your just beating the pile of dirt that was the horse 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-07-25 at 3:18 PM, Leyers_of_facade said:

Although to be honest, a much cheaper / easier solution would be to add in the options for people to "always be host" and "never be host", while they are still flawed, I could see the the benefits of such would certainly outweight the comparatively low costs of implementing such.

 

 

yes. listen to this guy and let us toggle always-host, pls. some of us have badass pc/inet and can be a force for good!#$ heh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...