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

1 hour ago, RX-3DR said:

You're kind of cherry-picking your comparison here.

Movement and actions in PoE are rather strict and defined, you are moving from X:Y to X:Y, you are using A towards X:Y, enemy E at X:Y uses attack S towards X:Y. Waframe is not as simple and you can have a ton of data being sent as you bounce from XYZ at direction with a velocity of V with a wall bounce while firing your gun at another direction and using a single-handed ability. Even if you trimmed down some cost by not hosting solo instances (You can't do this just because a player is alone because if someone joins, it means his session would, ironically, need to be migrated to the server), what you save might not cover the additional cost you're paying for better hardware and connectivity.

Movement actually isnt so strict in PoE. It may look like it yes but you still have a three dimensional movement setup in it. Hence why you can leap up cliffsides aswell as getting annoyed when your AoE ends up above the targets because their happened to be a ledge of a different elevation. Sure it isnt like WF and I dont think I ever said that, but there are still major similarities when you start comparing if it would be viable to implement dedicated servers in WF.

I'm also not sure what you are talking about regarding solo. If I pick solo in the game now, I will not be joined by others. Or are you talking about signing up and ending up in a match alone? In that case you still signed up for group play so it is not the solo I talk about at all.

I'm just amazed so many are happy with the S#&$ty peer-to-peer we are stuck with and fight tooth and claw against any suggestions regarding dedicated servers. WF is afterall trying to keep up with the times, dedicated servers would be a natural step. Heck dedicated servers are probably more evolving for the game than adding a bunch of flashy graphics, both costing resources and one which would actually be a massive QoL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, marelooke said:

Dedicated servers for a game this size are extremely expensive, they would need to set them up across the globe as well or ping in a great many regions that are mostly fine currently due to P2P would be horrendous. Given how well the P2P system generally works for Warframe there's very little added value to having dedicated servers (barring for certain areas, like hubs) and add to that the amount of money they won't be able to use for creating actual content and it's just not worth it.

When is the peer-to-peer system really working great? It is the most bug ridden peer-to-peer system I've experienced in the last 20 years or so. The issues it has with host switches etc are terrible and the matchmaking isnt good either. Implementing dedicated servers would not have to take resources from content, it could take resources and manpower from other QoL aspects instead. Less graphic upgrades for a while as they add dedicated servers. Things that actually have to do with the quality of the gameplay performance, which is pretty much the only thing the added graphic settings and tweaks do. They also wont be used by everyone, unlike dedicated servers that everyone would make use of. Lower end players would be impacted far more by servers because they would no longer be a hindrance due to ending up as hosts.

I'd be happy if they got a good and working matchmaking system going, so we can actually get into game where our desired ping limit is met. Right now the number of lag hosts is insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 844448 said:

1. Vastly lower isn't true, the one I see that cost 1,400 USD is the lightweight one and from my thread asking about that, it supports 32 to 64 players with that specs, up to 4824 USD/year for heavyweight one and not in US

There are 195 countries in the world that will need servers for that service. With that as consideration, how much money they will burn in a year just to rent the servers? I had my bad times with server based games where you have no server for Asia and the ping delay is long enough to get you slaughtered without knowing where the attacks come from or having yourself killed because enemy attacks get registered faster so no, I prefer P2P system where I can find someone in my country or someone near enough to play without having delays from servers between players

2. Because DE was an underfunded indie company and warframe was their project when in the edge of bankruptcy before their success with it

3. PR stunts draw attention and make people interested, something that have potential to draw new players (I would grind the hell out of warframe to get that opticor if I didn't know about it in the first place) compared to renting server

My thoughts on this? Leave the P2P system as it is, it's good enough if you have good platform and good internet for that but you can't guarantee someone isn't using an ancient relic to play warframe and with server, I doubt that will be any help. If there's an alternative, let those who have powerful PC able to host their own dedicated server for PvP, we have this configuration for conclave dedicated server

1. not much to say besides those numbers seem really off... it's a well documented issue how US internet providers throttle their network in order to charge more and pay less. with a quick google search it's not hard to find evidence of this.

2. i was poking fun at how DE hasn't improved their net code in 6 years. obviously they were in a rush to make it a functioning product so they could stay afloat, but now that they have the resources to look back at outdated parts of the game and fix them, they really should. (fixing netcode is a lot less expensive then paying for servers and sometimes it can do even more then servers can for the game)

3. i did say in my original post that renting servers wouldn't bring in any money for DE. i was stating that DE HAS the money to if they really wanted to buy servers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stormy505 said:

1. not much to say besides those numbers seem really off... it's a well documented issue how US internet providers throttle their network in order to charge more and pay less. with a quick google search it's not hard to find evidence of this.

Those numbers are not off. If you're renting a server blade (dedicated server, rather than an allocated VM) you're pretty much paying anywhere from $1,000 USD to $4,000 USD per year. That money goes towards the company who buys, installs and maintains the hardware. You're paying for an IT employee (or team) to be on call to troubleshoot any issues the server(s) have, the ludicrously high-speed internet the server is hooked up to (Multiple gigabit upload speeds, this will usually run $50~300 USD/month depending on the speed), and insurance so that if the hardware fails the company will set you up with a new server blade at no additional cost.

Now, considering how many players there are at any given point, you're probably looking at well well over 1,000 servers. Steam charts have shown Warframe running a peak of 131,000 players simultaneously at one point; let's say the total PC players are 1.5x that number (assuming 2/3rds play on Steam and not the standalone launcher), you're looking at about 200,000 active players on PC. Let's assume that PS4 and XB1 are 75% of that number for each platform, you're now up to 500,000 players. Let's say Nintendo Switch is 25%, that adds it all up to 550,000 active players at any given time. 

I'm an engineer though, and we like to add an additional 50% on to our tolerance limits to reduce risk of redlining our stuff, so we'll design it for 825,000 simultaneous players just in case. Now, if each server blade can support a single 64 player instance (or 16 4-player instances), you're looking at a shave under 13,000 dedicated server blades, distributed around the world. Assume we're using the cheapest $1,000/blade and voila it's a $13,000,000 yearly expense for DE. If you use better servers (up to $4,000/year/blade), you're looking at up to $52,000,000 per year of expenses... And probably some more than that due to renting servers in foreign countries.

 

Now, although DE doesn't make their financial information public, I have a sneaking suspicion that after costs (renting their office space, advertisements, licenses for software, insurance, overhead, employee salary, etc) that they do not have $13,000,000 ~ $52,000,000 available to spend on dedicated servers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would pay an optional subscription fee for dedicated servers while those who don't want dedicated servers can still use the current P2P system the game currently uses. 

A fee would allow for DE to cover server maintenance costs so it's not on their pocket, while the argument of "dedicated servers won't fix your current problems and will make it worse for other players due to server distance" would not apply. 

Sure it would split the playerbase, but if you are already satisfied with the current P2P system and argued against dedicated servers on the other thread, then how would it affect you if people who don't want to play with you while you host don't have to? It opens the spot for another player using the current P2P system because they are as satisfied as you are. 

Best of both worlds. Those who want dedicated servers pay the premium for it, while those who are fine with the current system don't have to make their connections worse due to distance and DE don't have to bleed money on maintenence.

Discuss. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No...it separates the game into 'haves" and "have-nots".   If you cannot see this..then you have not thought about this very hard.   Imagine the backlash DE would get from the people with lesser PC's or connections..  Now..if this was EA..then they would have done it already.   Good thing DE is not EA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know there's enough interest in dedicated servers that the amount they'd make from you paying players would cover the costs? Or if its even worth going through the trouble for you and about 5 other players who want dedicated servers this badly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Jarriaga said:

A fee

Sure it would split the playerbase

pay the premium for it

Recipe for a dead game
and how does the game work having both P2P and dedicated server? its easy to give ideas but how to realistically implement that. Dedicated server only good if youre living in the area near the server, otherwise its even worse because you cant play at all with 300ping and lots of packet loss/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-07-25 at 11:47 AM, CaptainMeowth said:

Everyone minus me then.

You like host migration??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Im_a_Turtle said:

You like host migration??

Some players rarely, if ever, experience it. In all my time playing Warframe I've had maybe less than a dozen host migrations occur during my gameplay, and when they do occur they have been graceful for the most part.

 

Granted I'm probably in the minority (powerful PC and very fast internet), but their rebut was more to do with the fact that it's never wise, in an open forum, to say 'I speak for everyone' because with a community this large I can guarantee that such a statement is false. Also, dedicated servers and their upkeep is a much more complex issue than 'host migrations bad, get dedicated servers.'

Share this post


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

Movement actually isnt so strict in PoE. It may look like it yes but you still have a three dimensional movement setup in it. Hence why you can leap up cliffsides aswell as getting annoyed when your AoE ends up above the targets because their happened to be a ledge of a different elevation. Sure it isnt like WF and I dont think I ever said that, but there are still major similarities when you start comparing if it would be viable to implement dedicated servers in WF.

I'm also not sure what you are talking about regarding solo. If I pick solo in the game now, I will not be joined by others. Or are you talking about signing up and ending up in a match alone? In that case you still signed up for group play so it is not the solo I talk about at all.

I'm just amazed so many are happy with the S#&$ty peer-to-peer we are stuck with and fight tooth and claw against any suggestions regarding dedicated servers. WF is afterall trying to keep up with the times, dedicated servers would be a natural step. Heck dedicated servers are probably more evolving for the game than adding a bunch of flashy graphics, both costing resources and one which would actually be a massive QoL.

You can have three-dimensional movement, but store the data in 2 dimensional coordinates. It's not how the game processes you from the coordinates but how the information can be packaged. Regardless, the amount that happens with movement on Warframe is significantly higher and you will have to spend more on hardware and connectivity to support it. You're using the comparison of bypassing solo instances and saying that it's going to cost them less, which there is no logical assurance. I'd argue it'll probably cost them a lot more considering the difference in what goes on in the game. The cherry-picking in specific, is that on a very small area that could be done better, DE can spend less on dedicated servers. Just because an apple and watermelon are both in the fruit aisle doesn't mean that half the watermelon is going to cost less than the whole apple, there are a lot more factors at play.

Yes, I'm talking about solo. You're looking at shaving off a very small amount of server resources because it has to be restricted to the solo only mode. Friends/Invite only sessions have to be able to pick up new players immediately, meaning that they would have to sit on the server as its own session for just a single person. It's not exactly a massive improvement.

Personally, I'm not happy with it but neither am I that horribly upset about it, it's just a thing and so far, I've never had too much problems with it. My gripe with the whole dedicated server fad is that it's not a magical solution that will solve everything, it comes with its own set of problems. If you're not located near any server, if all nearby available servers are full, if you have an unstable connection out internationally, almost everything having some amount of ping, etc. Could you imagine if your region gets lower allocation, and you're forced to sit and wait for an available session, play on solo only, or end up with 200+ms of ping connecting to a different region just so you can play with someone in the same room? It doesn't translate to a magical improvement that everyone will login to the game, see it and go oh wow this is so amazing. 

Share this post


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

I'm just amazed so many are happy with the S#&$ty peer-to-peer we are stuck with and fight tooth and claw against any suggestions regarding dedicated servers. WF is afterall trying to keep up with the times, dedicated servers would be a natural step. Heck dedicated servers are probably more evolving for the game than adding a bunch of flashy graphics, both costing resources and one which would actually be a massive QoL.

What kind of hell hole you're living to have it S#&$ty? I've played with people all over the region and almost never have it so it's time to check if the host you joined wasn't using potato as PC and/or folded wires as internet because it's the main problem from host migration

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indie mobile multiplayer games now a days have dedicated servers lmfao DE is able to get away with it because of questionable white knights defending them oh well i mean i don't  care to much about the game anymore so let DE do what they want 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ShadowStalker said:

Indie mobile multiplayer games now a days have dedicated servers lmfao DE is able to get away with it because of questionable white knights defending them oh well i mean i don't  care to much about the game anymore so let DE do what they want 

Sure, just ignore the multiple reasons for why such comparisons aren't applicable. Just call everyone who disagrees with you a white knight, that's sure to persuade them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaah, soooo many entitled people that don't know anything about network nor finances, basing their entire arguments upon "this is 2019" and "I speak for every one" !

And I thought today would be a boring day...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Corvid said:

Sure, just ignore the multiple reasons for why such comparisons aren't applicable. Just call everyone who disagrees with you a white knight, that's sure to persuade them!

Tell me the "Multiple Reasons" if thats not to much to ask (please only provide actual facts as to why and not theoretical reasons)thanks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Le 30/07/2019 à 04:14, Im_a_Turtle a dit :

You like host migration??

Servers won't fix the problems, read the others posts before talking.

Also, don't make me say thing I didn't said.

Also, don't quote me on a topic I've unfollowed because everything had already been said.

...

...actually, please, just stop talking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think costs are the least of their problems. If you were paying attention during TennoCon, they mentioned that they gave a $250k scholarship to someone and have a contest where they're going to send someone to space, which I'm guessing is Suuuuper expensive. It's safe to assume they aren't hurting for cash.

If you look in your Warframe Launcher options you'll notice an option to turn your PC into a dedicated server for other players to use, but only for Conclave matches. I think they give small amounts of plat to good servers, or at least that's how I remember them describing it. Why they don't expand this to regular play is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 844448 said:

What kind of hell hole you're living to have it S#&$ty? I've played with people all over the region and almost never have it so it's time to check if the host you joined wasn't using potato as PC and/or folded wires as internet because it's the main problem from host migration

And that is why dedicated servers would be a massive improvement.

It really isnt about where you live at all, it is all about who you end up with as host due to the horrible (to say the least) matchmaking system WF has. It completely disregards ping limits, seem to have no check for stable connectivity and it doesnt take hardware into account either. All 3 of those problem roots would be gone with dedicated servers. I who live in northern europe would know that I'd get nothing higher than 70 ping from any euro based server hub. 70ms would be a high value and an extreme, it would be a case only if they somehow decided to place the servers in the most southern parts of europe. It would still be a very acceptable ms. And right there the worries about connectivity would stop more or less because you'd know the hardware was on par always and matchmaking would be done towards a server and not individual players.

Currently WF attracts every type of player, that means the game is flooded with potato users aswell as those trying to get the game to run on work/school laptops etc. Yeah sure, they might be able to run the game in a quality good enough for them, but the moment they become host they tank everyones performance, even if they live right next door in your building and have high speed internet.

The thing is, this crap happens alot in public matches.

7 hours ago, RX-3DR said:

Yes, I'm talking about solo. You're looking at shaving off a very small amount of server resources because it has to be restricted to the solo only mode. Friends/Invite only sessions have to be able to pick up new players immediately, meaning that they would have to sit on the server as its own session for just a single person. It's not exactly a massive improvement.

You'd actually be able to shave off alot. It isnt only about servers for personal mission instances, it is about shaving off server load for every single person not in an active mission, unlike Path of Exile where you are on a server from the moment you log in, taking up space when you might be standing around in a hub doing nothing. And you are in a mindset that everything would be as it is now when it comes to how friends and invites work. There are simple solutions for that too. Peer-to-peer can stay for non-mission parts of the game (trading in dojo, hanging out in your friend's ship etc.) along with a removal of being able to join friends in in-progress missions. All that can be shifted to be pre-mission only.

That way server load would only be impacted by multiplayer missions. What they could also change to utilize the servers better in such a case would be to have no limit on when new people can join along with a group finder with more options. That way if someone leaves at wave 10 in a defense another person would be able to backfill, making the game utilize every server instance to the fullest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, --DSP--Jetstream said:

Recipe for a dead game
and how does the game work having both P2P and dedicated server? its easy to give ideas but how to realistically implement that. Dedicated server only good if youre living in the area near the server, otherwise its even worse because you cant play at all with 300ping and lots of packet loss/

I see you left out the words "optional" out of your quotes. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was because my thread got merged into this one and thread title was lost instead of assuming you intentionally left it out so you could sustain your argument.

In my idea, if you decide to pay the optional fee, the dedicated server would apply to public matches. If you invite someone or someone invites you, you are kicked out of the dedicated server so the inviting player is the host. Once you leave the squad, you are migrated back to the dedicated server unless you are not paying for it, in which the game will connect you under another player host like it currently does. Trading is not affected because it's an invite. Squad chat is not affected since it's an invite. Relays and dojos are not affected since you are only migrated to the DS when choosing a public mission. 

The key is offering the ootional subscription based dedicated server for public matches only since that's where most of the problem is centered around. And since it would be an optional fee, as I noted in my post in case you decided to ignore it, it doesn't matter if the servers are at 300ping packet loss because it is still an opt-in option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Chappie1975 said:

No...it separates the game into 'haves" and "have-nots".   If you cannot see this..then you have not thought about this very hard.   Imagine the backlash DE would get from the people with lesser PC's or connections..  Now..if this was EA..then they would have done it already.   Good thing DE is not EA.

It would not. My original post was its own thread and highlighted an optional subscription fee. Optional, as in, if you don't want to, you don't have to. I flat out mentioned that by making it optional, those who are far from the servers can play like they currently do because they don't have to pay for it. 

You're paying for it? Your user is connected a dedicated server for public matches. All other activities based on invitations such as trading or when joining a dedicated squad would migrate you to a standard host.

No one loses that way unless you wish to present the argument that the number of people who would pay for public dedicated servers would desolate those still playing P2P public, which would contradict the premise that most players don't want dedicated servers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jaysus41 said:

If you look in your Warframe Launcher options you'll notice an option to turn your PC into a dedicated server for other players to use, but only for Conclave matches. I think they give small amounts of plat to good servers, or at least that's how I remember them describing it. Why they don't expand this to regular play is beyond me. 

Emphasis mine.

You're wrong, that has never been a thing. There's a Dedicated Server leaderboard and that's it. There's no compensation for hosting a Conclave server, at all. People host for others just for the sake of it, and they have the players' gratitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please i'll fight for this to be a dream come true!!! Dedicated Servers are necessary, especially for trials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, marelooke said:

Dedicated servers for a game this size are extremely expensive, they would need to set them up across the globe as well or ping in a great many regions that are mostly fine currently due to P2P would be horrendous. Given how well the P2P system generally works for Warframe there's very little added value to having dedicated servers (barring for certain areas, like hubs) and add to that the amount of money they won't be able to use for creating actual content and it's just not worth it.

Dead by daylight has dedicated servers. Warframe makes enough money they can at least have a few for certain game modes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 26 Minuten schrieb Midas:

Please i'll fight for this to be a dream come true!!! Dedicated Servers are necessary, especially for trials!

Not only this, imagine how the oh so great, big and wonderful and complex railjack will end up with constantly joining hosts from literal hell, host migration and connection losses to the host.

Only the THOUGHT of it actually makes me want to claw my eyes out with a fork.

Either servers or I won't touch that "thing" in ages. Let's just hope they don't lock mandatory progression behind it.

And I can guarantee you this will be the top complaint in the forum just like with every update they delivered in the past that makes a mission take longer than 60 seconds.

I'm still for crowd funding this stuff, yes, I would pay a monthly fee for that. There's no issue with it at all, Microsoft does this for literally over a decade, so? It just works. And I haven't regret a single buck I gave them, thanks to their servers. 

But the current way where people lose stuff on a regular basis and not do anything is insulting at this point. They haven't worked on anything in the past, they just keep sweeping it under the carpet. (Not even servers for saving the loot which sends you your stuff if you disconnect etc.) [There's apparently something like this with fissures but I haven't seen it nor does it do it correctly]

What made me explode was a tricap, where the host stood exàctly 1m before the door (after the hunt) and pressed leave squad while we others waited at the door for him. This is insulting. Lost everything and couldn't find another group so the night was completely wasted. (I know he pressed it because he said so himself because he wanted to fish)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...