Warframe is successful enough to have dedicated servers

[Dr_Shadox]

I see some peoples here as sadic enough for like when a host force you to wait 10secondes in front of a green door for open

I strongly doubt we'll have servers one day , but at least give us possibility to split the matchmaking , like bad conexion with other bad conexion , average with average , and good with good , instead of a mixed and random hosting.

I can't count the time or host answer us "ah ? yeah sorry i download a game" or "yeah i know  my network is crap" => very fun when they know they are the host...

[CxLL]

Child in the middle of nowhere sees an ad in which other children are playing with some high tech toys. "I WANT THAT!", the child yells at its parents. Not having the means to provide that particular toy for the child but wanting to keep it happy, the parents make a similar toy from the materials they could find. The child tosses the toy right back at its parents' faces "THAT'S NOT WHAT I WANT!", it exclaims. The parents try to explain the overall situation to the child, from the state of finances to the state of accessibility to such products, but the child constantly interrupts and yells "EXCUSES, EXCUSES! IF THE OTHER CHILDREN CAN HAVE IT, SO SHOULD I!"

2 hours ago, seprent said:

this horse isn't even being beaten any more your just beating the pile of dirt that was the horse 

Very well-said.

[(PSN)SifuPurpleWolf]

dont you know warframe is just one big content drought after another id rather have dedicated servers and nothing else for a year because that would improve the game tremendous and who knows maybe bring back raids and actually challenging content thats not just disgusting fortuna and cetus standing grinding 

[Leyers_of_facade]

1 hour ago, WhiteMarker said:

So far people making this demand never solved one simple problem. Who will host, if 4 "always-hosts" end up in a party?

I am not even sure if you are trying to be funny or you just can't figure out even one solution. Here are 3 solutions that anyone probably can come up within mere seconds / minutes.

 

1) simplest solution: under the 4 "always-host" or 4 "never host" condition, the system randomly selects one person. This is similar to the current system, except the always host and never-host just puts priority on some people over others. In the case where everyone belongs in the same group and no one has priority, the system just picks similar to current system

=> This solution is flawed in the sense that people who may not have a good connection would also put always host and actually in some cases end up being the host despite not being the one with better connection. On the other hand, this is by far the easiest to implement out of the 3

 

2) Connection rating system. After each game, the players can give the host a rating (say out of 10) on what they consider for the connection on their games. In addition, the game should also have a record of the percentage who left the game squad without completing the mission when player X is host, and this percentage should be added into the rating in a sensible way. Taking both accounts into consideration,  the system will then always pick the one who have the highest average rating after taking priority into consideration(always host > "no setting" > never host).

=> This solution is flawed in the sense that the player based rating is purely subjective, while it can to some extent also reflect hosting quality, it cannot be used as the sole indicator. Adding percentage of leavers is also slightly flawed but attempts to at least include the cases where players cannot even connect to the game or alt-f4 mid mission instead of even finishing the game due to connectivity. 

 

3) Most complex solution. DE implements a system that either can test a player's hosting capability, or alternatively a system that can continuously collects data on player's hosting capability, then based on the data collected, group player's hosting capability into different groups and those in a higher group are given priority (in the case where there is more than 1 player in a certain group, we can go with the random method)

=> While this is probably the best solution in terms of improving hosting quality without implementing dedicated servers, it is also obvious to anyone that the amount of data generated would be massive regardless which system was used. In addition, the cost is likely a lot higher (magnitudes higher) compared to the other solutions and there are also definitely issues regarding the testing methods / data collection methods. I personally will not recommend this solution among the 3 due to the costs associated.

 

 

[Tenno76856]

Odds are Aussie/kiwi players will suffer if dedicated servers are everywhere bar oceania everywhere . existing network works fine (most of time)

[SaidTheRogue]

2 hours ago, WhiteMarker said:

So far people making this demand never solved one simple problem. Who will host, if 4 "always-hosts" end up in a party?

its solved quite easily by the simple fact that most wont use it, based on most ppl dont have such great pc/inet and they know it, but mostly.. ppl just dont dig thru options. how many times have you had to tell someone where the setting for <whatever> is?

dont be a hater, lets have our toys and toggles and gadgets, eh..

[ColPresumptuous]

57 minutes ago, NigglesAU said:

Odds are Aussie/kiwi players will suffer if dedicated servers are everywhere bar oceania everywhere . existing network works fine (most of time)

As an Oceanic player who has his ping limit ingame set to 300 or lower, ive had no real issues with WFs hosting system and wouldnt want it changed.

Id say its maybe one in 20 missions that I get a host migration occur and even then the mission doesnt fail and it just goes on as it did before just with the new assigned host. Occasionally ill get a mission where a door wont open but honestly, ive seen that maybe once in the last 6 months at most and it usually just takes the host leaving to fix it.

When im the host ive not had any complaints (there was one but it turned out i had a streaming video going in Firefox id forgotten about). The worst missions ive been in usually are where the loot floats in the air slowly falling to the ground and the enemies stutter all over the place as they move and that is usually the hosts machine being incapable of handling the job as host rather than the connection, but I hardly see that any more compared to the old days... its funny really since even during a Network Lost error in WF during a mission you can still play the game without issue which ive always appreciated since usually that sort of thing in other games results in the player being completely locked out of doing anything until the issues corrects itself or being disced back to login instantly.

What i find funny is when if im a host (and even if someone else is) i get a person popping into the mission then suddenly a few seconds latter leaving the mission, you know they left because it wasnt 'good enough' for them. Its like they cant handle even the slightest lag. As someone whos been gaming for 35+ years with a ping around the 190-250ms or higher you get used to it and WF as far as things like that goes is damn good all things considered... kids these days dont know how good they've got it (granted Americas Internet is actually worse than most countries even my own lol).

DE can do what it does and be what it is because it doesnt have that server overhead to deal with... if DE started to use their own dedicated servers for missions all that would change for the worst and people would STILL complain about the servers and host migration, because it sure as hell doesnt go away just because the game makers have their own servers (its a part of gaming online always has been always will be).

And to the people who are constantly getting stupid amounts of Host Migration in WF (those people who complain about it happeneing every other mission)... given the majority of us players dont get that much host migration, by logic that would mean it isnt really WF but you that has the issue...

Edited July 28, 2019 by ColPresumptuous

[Arniox]

On 2019-07-26 at 3:38 AM, (XB1)DavidRyder 74 said:

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

No they don't. I don't want that. Otherwise I can't play with my brother in the same house with 0 delay. We'd have delay to the servers. 

Plus we live in NZ so we'd have to deal with annoying Aus servers because no one ever makes NZ servers. 

[6Sanity9x]

On 2019-07-25 at 4:47 PM, CaptainMeowth said:

Everyone minus me then.

Yep, same for me.

I don't mind host migrations.
 

On 2019-07-25 at 4:38 PM, (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.

I have one quick fix for that, it's called ping slider!
Choose what ping you would like to play with others!
PS: It's on the options.

[844448]

Here's the thing, OP, dedicated server is still peer to peer connection, except it's on a better platform of the host called server and it's not cheap. I just checked on a dedicated server website and it costs $1,400 a year for 16GB and 1gbps uplink. With that power, how many do you need to support at least 1/10 of total registered players (+/- 5 million) across 5 regions? And the location is fixed so those who are far enough from the servers will see no difference, might be worse than current connection where you can find someone from your country to play together to have less problem on it

What I think is better is improving the net code even further to ensure the host migration success to 100% even with someone using an ancient relic as PC that is worse than a potato and folded wires held in the air as internet

[RX-3DR]

4 hours ago, SaidTheRogue said:

its solved quite easily by the simple fact that most wont use it, based on most ppl dont have such great pc/inet and they know it, but mostly.. ppl just dont dig thru options. how many times have you had to tell someone where the setting for <whatever> is?

dont be a hater, lets have our toys and toggles and gadgets, eh..

How would you know this? That's a very big, and potentially very grave assumption to make. At best, the situation goes your way and only a select number of people find out about it.

At worse, someone spreads a misconception to a bunch of players with bad connections that "it fixes lag". It doesn't but to a clueless person, all he will perceive is that he no longer gets any delays (because he is always the host). Stack that on top of the people who will use it because "better him than me disconnecting", and you will create a situation where not having it on will make it more likely to match you with a bad host and result in a bunch of empty and half-filled matches all the time.

[Learicorn]

Ok i know this game is successful and all but

Hundreds of millions???

[Hypermega]

On 2019-07-25 at 4:38 PM, (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.

Im pretty sure there is hybrid p2p tech that doesn't server migrate and lots of games like destiny, elite dangerous, cod etc use this. its still p2p but you have a server that transitions takes over durin a transition.

 

 

[(XBOX)Almighty Deity]

On 2019-07-25 at 10:53 AM, Shinobu_Scorpion said:

No no, I'm of the same mind as you.

Can we seriously stop using these "I speak for everyone" statements as valid arguments. Because you will rarely, if ever, be in a situation here where that is true.

Then allow me to tell you why they haven't done it. It's expensive, risky, and likely won't make money to implement, and that's just the tip of the iceberg on dedicated vs. player hosted.

[(XBOX)Alpha or Elite]

then kill the game i agree.

[Veridian]

How I imagine most people creating a post like this think it works:

*DE gets a big box and plugs it into Warframe*
- We have servers now guys.

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by Ver1dian

[844448]

Hey OP, here's a small thread asking about server you can see for yourself

 

[Zeclem]

On 2019-07-25 at 8:14 PM, hellodownthere said:

How did you come to this figure or are you just being hyperbolic ?

Also i agree to FashionFrame just set your ping to 50-100ms and you're golden, if you still get them then i can only say that you're the one with bad internet

i have a fiber connection, i still keep getting hosts with 500-1k ping quite constantly. 

On 2019-07-26 at 12:40 AM, WhiteMarker said:

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...

its not like every decision made by DE always turned out great for the game.

while yes, it would be costly and yes, it wont fix all the issues of conenction, it would most definitely help if done properly. look at the pvp games within the industry. those are very ping reliant, and no such a game that i know of runs on p2p. and for good reason. 

Edited July 29, 2019 by Zeclem

[Corvid]

1 hour ago, Zeclem said:

while yes, it would be costly and yes, it wont fix all the issues of conenction, it would most definitely help if done properly. look at the pvp games within the industry. those are very ping reliant, and no such a game that i know of runs on p2p. and for good reason. 

I seem to recall most Halo games ran on P2P. In fact, one of the main causes of the Master Chief Collection's launch issues was that 343i tried to convert them to run on dedicated servers that they were never built for. In fact, those problems were only solved about 4 years after the original launch (bear in mind that this is a studio that had access to the resources and financial backing of Microsoft).

[Kokomala]

There was a devstream (or interview) a while back where dedicated servers were discussed a bit.

P2P made sense back at the start where they had to get a stable product out quickly. It was a decision that was made regarding the sustainability of the game. P2P was cheaper and easier to implement. Is dedicated servers better? Yes, however there is a significant amount of risk involved as there is a huge amount of networking code that would need to be done, not to mention all the testing involved. So effectively it's on the side whilst the focus on other things.

[GF-110]

I think there would be massive issues swapping to dedicated servers. Not just the Netcode, but logistically setting up servers in every geographical region where Warframe is played. I hate host migration issues, but based on playing MMOs in Australia, I'd rather not play a shooter in constant 400ms in order to play with my American friends.

[844448]

2 hours ago, Zeclem said:

i have a fiber connection, i still keep getting hosts with 500-1k ping quite constantly. 

its not like every decision made by DE always turned out great for the game.

while yes, it would be costly and yes, it wont fix all the issues of conenction, it would most definitely help if done properly. look at the pvp games within the industry. those are very ping reliant, and no such a game that i know of runs on p2p. and for good reason. 

It's more to host problem, I believe. Not everyone can afford fiber connection or decent pc (who knows if there's someone with ancient relic as pc?)

The question is, is warframe a PvP focused game? I believe not outweighing PvE aspects for now and I made a thread asking for that, a server that can handle 32 players costs 1411 USD a year so how many servers do we need to handle at least 1 million players? And that might result to situation like anthem where you can't login because of the server

[stormy505]

11 hours ago, 844448 said:

Here's the thing, OP, dedicated server is still peer to peer connection, except it's on a better platform of the host called server and it's not cheap. I just checked on a dedicated server website and it costs $1,400 a year for 16GB and 1gbps uplink. With that power, how many do you need to support at least 1/10 of total registered players (+/- 5 million) across 5 regions? And the location is fixed so those who are far enough from the servers will see no difference, might be worse than current connection where you can find someone from your country to play together to have less problem on it

What I think is better is improving the net code even further to ensure the host migration success to 100% even with someone using an ancient relic as PC that is worse than a potato and folded wires held in the air as internet

A few things.

1. Server and internet pricings are vastly lower outside the US and also usually more powerful. (A lot of US companies throttle their services in order to charge more and pay less.)

2. I obviously can't tell without looking directly but warframes netcode is also probably a huge part of the issue, it feels like it was made by an underfunded indie company back in 2013.

3. warframe is almost certainly able to pay for the servers. if they can spend 250 grand on a glorified PR stunt, they have disposable income. Although justifying the cost is a whole other issue. for games like overwatch or fortnite (PvP competitive games.) having good servers keeps the competitive scene alive and justifys the cost. And competitive games without dedicated servers will suffer, (cough smash cough.) But for a PvE focus game. Good servers don't really bring a profit for de. And at the end of the day, that matters the most.

[Trooopsie]

On 2019-07-25 at 11:38 AM, (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.

This problem isn't common though. Not like every game is like this. Don't think DE should upgrade just for a RNG based connection.

[Rhyandra]

vor 14 Minuten schrieb Trooopsie:

This problem isn't common though. Not like every game is like this. Don't think DE should upgrade just for a RNG based connection.

LMAO rng based connection. Talking about people that don't know what they're talking about. Can't wait for endless host migrations in Railjack. Oh, what's also funny is how many DE employees are posting here just to disagree with the OP. Servers cost so much? I guess literally every other publisher and game dev should switch to peer to peer hosting, right? They cost soooooo much money and it would be a lot better for everyone, right? :')