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

3 hours ago, (XB1)Huggs93 said:

Why is it being shut down? I work in networking and security and that’s perfectly viable I said what I said based on legacy systems in case the servers were ever being repaired or shut down or being repaired for some reason 

It's being shut down because the end argument is "DE shouldn't do dedicated servers and I will justify why while ignoring any other game that has done it".

Share this post


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

Being 2D is not a jail-free card for you to ignore the number of players in the thousands at once all with their own classes, equipment, stats, and character designs as well as server technology and computer specs and Internet speeds of 2004. Even if you decide to consider instances, a standard 4 people Warframe squad would behave the same way as an instance in function (Minus the cooldown so you don't farm bosses over and over) and you still have many more connections per instance in RO (12) than WF (4) that all need to be synchronized in enemy placement and movement, player placement and movement, HP and MP values, shared XP, ability cast times and effects, loot drops and damage calculations and resistances for both players and enemies. 

What you see on screen does not equate to what is actually being processed on the server.

Ragnarok works on an grid X:Y, even if there are floors, the game will often design them on 2 dimensions instead because it's significantly easier to store and manage as you can have the client process events that may consider the vertical distance. That already saves a lot of data being passed around as well as computation. Warframe works with with XYZ coordinates with free movement, there is no timer, it's a very drastic change with synchronizing locations with other clients. HP, MP and all those are just numbers. Damage and resistances are simple calculations.

AI entities in Ragnarok do not follow any complicated logic, they move from A to B in the most efficient way possible via the grid, that saves you a lot of processing. If you had to replicate that number of enemies in Warframe, the game would likely break and chug along as it has to look at every AI entity, decide an action based on various event factors such as distance to target, nearby allies, etc, and the draw a path that it can traverse to 

You can see a map with 100 people and a ton of numbers floating around, it can be processed into a 2D map of everyone's location on a grid with a player's ID within that grid. Events are handled using the grid coordinates such as Player A(X:Y) use Skill ID(LOV8) at X:Y. It takes your stats and runs it through a small calculation to derive your damage and it runs at X;Y location and applies the attack on all enemies within X - 5 ~ X + 5 : Y - 5 ~ Y + 5. There's not very much that actually needs to be handled by the server. You can have 100s of them happening every second and most systems will be able to handle it because once again, it's just a bunch of IDs and coordinates being passed around. Your client will then process that information and you will see 500 numbers lingering on screen. You can literally write every action into a log and have them play out on each client quite easily. With Warframe, it's not as easy with trying to translate movement, direction and actions that can happen concurrently for each entity. 

12 minutes ago, Jarriaga said:

Size and latency, performance and specs and internet services and average connection speeds from 2004 are being measured against 2019 and somehow some companies are able to do it, and others are unable to. How many games (Both recent and old) have been provided as examples? Why are none of them accepted as valid examples? You may question my understanding of networking and data being moved, but that just sidesteps the existence of said games with no valid explanation as to why they are somehow years ahead of WF in network infrastructure and netcode out of the gate while offering dedicated servers.

Because a lot of the examples given are often cherrypicking certain aspects of that game to try to draw a ridiculous comparison. Even if hardware is better than before, you have to factor in that games are also more complicated, resulting in less of an impact as you would expect from better hardware. If you have a computer that's 10 times faster but you're processing 20 times more information, it's going to slow down because it has a lot more to go through. If you want to make fair comparisons, you should make them as close as possible, not pick something that shares some a very minor aspect with Warframe and pretend that it means that they are equal (e.g. Path of Exile is PvE and instance based so it's the same as Warframe!).

Share this post


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

You completely side stepped my point because you don't have an answer.  If that protocol in 2004 was so amazing (speed and cost)....why isn't i the defacto standard today?  Again...we have faster computers and connections and there are probably better protocols.   Explain why DE and every other developer looking to minimize overall networking (this include staff) costs just doesn't use that.   Until you can explain that your whole argument is biased towards the answer you want with the core tenant of "greed" as your argument.   Again..what doesn't add up is your knowledge of networking and data (size and latency).

I will not call you an idiot...but I will call you willfully ignorant.  

Again: Me not being able to answer how it was done or why it is not the standard does not negate its existence. I never said it was amazing. I only pointed out that that's how it worked regardless of behind the scenes complications unknown to me.

I don't know if DE has looked into that protocol and neither do you. I don't know what they have considered and neither do you. Your very argument calling out how my argument is biased towards the outcome I'd like is a two way street in which your own argument does the same, yet I at least can point out to examples in which it works while you are unable to point out direct examples in which it failed and the game had to be moved to P2P so it could work. 

Being willfully ignorant also goes both ways, because no game example is good enough for you or those against the idea, so this discussion goes nowhere when the core of your argument is sustained on hypocrisy oblivious to how it applies to you as well.

Share this post


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

It's being shut down because the end argument is "DE shouldn't do dedicated servers and I will justify why while ignoring any other game that has done it".

I’m sorry but that’s stupid you can always add more functionality and things to do and ways to do them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...can someone lock this thread, please ?

It's been one week of Sh:clem:tposting, now...
Time to move on. 😕

(also I'm tired of people quoting me (especially when their only argument is basically "LOL DIDN'T READ"...))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, DrakeRemorea said:

Yeah alright guys all this does is improve gameplay

Except there's no guarantee that it will. Being peer to peer means that solo players like myself don't have to worry about losing connection to the server (with the exception of ending missions and time spent in the Orbiter, as there are a fair few serverside processes during that time). Dedicated servers would make my general gameplay objectively less stable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fallen77 said:

Oh no trust me (or not, I'm an internet random after all, I'll give you that, but still), I'm an accountant, it's my job. 

At first, the gross profit people are talking about is not usable entirely, that would be closer to what I was trying to say. Yes, the number bellow profit should take about all costs into consideration, but it is heavily split afterward. It is that profit that pays the parent companies, no way around this one.

Now, it's a pretty image you have in your mind, but it's very far from reality. Leyou won't take too much ? They will cherish DE ? Not go too hard on them ? Nonononono... It's not how it works. Investor goes to DE : "here's a S#&$ ton of money, you're my slave now, make a lot of grofit or you're out". It's always like this. Think whatever you want, I prepare the payments for my investors, they take as much as possible.

And ofc they take a bunch, how long you expect warframes to last ? 5 years ? 6 ? They have to generate more money than what they bought DE for in that time or it's just wasted. So unless new servers bring twice as much players as POE did, it won't even be considered.

And from what I could see (sneackily researched while at work, didn't have the time to double check everything), out of the 140 millions of profit in 2018, the parent companies took around 85 millions for themselves. And that's not DE's profit, but the all group's profit, which means DE would get even less.

And ofc leyou has their hands in DE's decision, they own the thing, any action is impacting them first. That's always how it has worked, you sell your company to get big ducats, but you loose all control over it. 

And ofc leyou has control over WF, if it's DE's property, it's Leyou's property, simple as that. Why would they buy something if they don't own it in the end ?

 

And finally, if you did your homework, you'd know dservers are not the magic solution to everything, as that is easily researchable. The quality of the connection is based on distance to and quality of the hosting server. 

Anyone that already has a good connection won't see a difference, it can even be worst for them if the server is placed far enough from them.

Anyone with a S#&$ty connection won't see a difference either, since they can't connect properly to any server.

So only players with a not too bad connection, and at the right geographical place, will see a difference.

The one thing I can give you would be the better stability of servers. So if the server is placed a bit too far from me (for example), I'll reliably get the same worst connection than before.

That's why only half the playerbase would see a difference.

Even more, a huge majority of network problems are not coming from p2p, it's coming from the individual's potato computer (not the one hosting).

I've played TF2 for years on a potato computer with potato internet, been to all available servers, it was always as laggy. Played WF for a year on the same potato computer, had all the problems in the world. Changed computer, got the fiber, I rarely host, but almost never have any problem, host migrations always work, doors open.

But I guess people (not aimed at you, just in general) would rather point the finger at someone else rather than working on their own issues. And don't get me the "not everyone can afford it", I worked overtime at subway for this computer, anyone not from a third world country can do it, just get to work.

Regarding the DE and Leyou, we simply dont know how much they actually own of the WF IP, we just know they own the company. Just as Bungie got became a part of Activision yet kept their IP intact. That tends to be how it works. Just as PoE is still the IP of GGG (or a person connected to GGG), it does not belong to Tencent. What Leyou can do is tell DE to stop making WF, that is it pretty much, that is the say they have in it. But that also means that an independant newly started company can take over the IP in such a case. It belongs to some person or persons really and that IP may date as far back as Dark Sector. This kinda turns out like the Angela/Spawn split, where Angela suddenly became a part of Marvel but Spawn never did. Not everything is tied to the obtainment of a company when it comes to IPs.

Regarding servers. Yes the quality is based on distance, but that is where the issues stop. And when people talk about dedicated servers they mostly mean world wide implementation of several hubs across the planet. And those that have a good connection will see an improvement because the whole peer-to-peer issue is removed. It doesnt matter if you have 7, 24, 100 or 1000mb lines if you end up with a bad host. Your internet will do practically 0 if your host has bad hardware, downloads S#&$ in the background or has a family that streams different things throughout the house. Your internet speed will barely impact how well the host handles the data, that is all on his end. That is the same reason why your internet wont matter if you try to migrate to such a host.

A dedicated server removes all this because it is dedicated to one job and one job only, pass information between clients through hardware combined to do just that. You will never have an individual interaction with any other player, so if that player who would maybe turn out as a host otherwise lags, it wont impact any of the other 3 players because all the info comes from the slave server. The impact he will have on the group is simply that he lags, if he were the host he would instead make everything for everyone lag, no matter their rig or connection because he would be the bottleneck.

So no, we cant afford it, because we cannot buy a guaranteed good host even for all the money in the world.

Share this post


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

Except there's no guarantee that it will. Being peer to peer means that solo players like myself don't have to worry about losing connection to the server (with the exception of ending missions and time spent in the Orbiter, as there are a fair few serverside processes during that time). Dedicated servers would make my general gameplay objectively less stable.

Uh no it wouldn't lmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Corvid said:

Except there's no guarantee that it will. Being peer to peer means that solo players like myself don't have to worry about losing connection to the server (with the exception of ending missions and time spent in the Orbiter, as there are a fair few serverside processes during that time). Dedicated servers would make my general gameplay objectively less stable.

That implies DE would be stupid enough to add dedicated servers for solo play, which would serve no purpose whatsoever. All those things should stay as is because it cannot get better than it is now, since currently we only interact with a tracking server upon entering a mission aswell as one upon leaving in order to save our progress.

We should give DE some credit and not act like they are idiots with a wrench and a hamster in a wheel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-07-25 at 12:07 PM, sleepychewbacca said:

You underestimate how much work would go into dedicated servers. 

For one, DE would need to make sure the netcode is up to par, and that is not an easy undertaking. Add in DE's spaghetti code? Can you guarantee that nothing would break? 

Do you not want content for a long time? This is how you don't get content for a long time. People already went mad when they took time to listen to the community begging for reworks to primary and secondaries. If you can be confident enough to put your name out when they do this, and there's a content drought complaint, then go for it. 

Lol we already dont get content for long amounts of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Il y a 15 heures, Jarriaga a dit :

Hgr5hsi.jpg

qmyNUd5.jpg

GYbXK79.jpg

That's -if- you decide to join an instance so you can initiate a specific activity or do a dungeon at your own pace without being affected by what other players on the same dungeon were doing. In other words, exactly why you doing an Eidolon hunt does not affect other players outside your squad. Otherwise you see all other players who are on the same map as you are killing the same monsters that you are, and seeing them whoop each other if they decide to do PvP in the middle of PvE. Megabosses were a thing as well because all 200K players could gang up on them and still need days to be killed. It was impossible to see yourself or distinguish anything past 1000 players but it was a common thing. 

And that was in 2004.

Being 2D is not a jail-free card for you to ignore the number of players in the thousands at once all with their own classes, equipment, stats, and character designs as well as server technology and computer specs and Internet speeds of 2004. Even if you decide to consider instances, a standard 4 people Warframe squad would behave the same way as an instance in function (Minus the cooldown so you don't farm bosses over and over) and you still have many more connections per instance in RO (12) than WF (4) that all need to be synchronized in enemy placement and movement, player placement and movement, HP and MP values, shared XP, ability cast times and effects, loot drops and damage calculations and resistances for both players and enemies. 

If all of that could be handled in an implementation that was offered to 200,000 people in 2004 and you had the option to either do 12 player instances (Squads) or just throw them all at once like WF's relays, then I am having a hard time accepting that somehow it would be more difficult or expensive on a game that limits you to 4 player instances or squads in 2019 with hardware that is on average 20 times more powerful.

And that was only that specific dedicated server. There were many other competitive dedicated servers being offered all with their own features to the point there were pages dedicated to comparing and ranking free RO dedicated servers. Many of them were vastly more popular and populated than EternityRO. Where was the money coming from to sustain such a competition? 

Something doesn't add up. Either the hosts of the Eternity RO private dedicated servers were millionaires that could afford servers in 2004 for 200k players while allowing me a stable connection even thought I was playing at 512kb broadband from a 3rd world country in a different continent (Dominican Republic), or server pricing and implementation is being grossly inflated here. 

Something just doesn't add up. 

 

Il y a 15 heures, Chappie1975 a dit :

You completely side stepped my point because you don't have an answer.  If that protocol in 2004 was so amazing (speed and cost)....why isn't i the defacto standard today?  Again...we have faster computers and connections and there are probably better protocols.   Explain why DE and every other developer looking to minimize overall networking (this include staff) costs just doesn't use that.   Until you can explain that your whole argument is biased towards the answer you want with the core tenant of "greed" as your argument.   Again..what doesn't add up is your knowledge of networking and data (size and latency).

I will not call you an idiot...but I will call you willfully ignorant.  

This.

And that's 100, not 200k players. With MUCH less info going around. Brain required here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Il y a 15 heures, SneakyErvin a dit :

Regarding the DE and Leyou, we simply dont know how much they actually own of the WF IP, we just know they own the company. Just as Bungie got became a part of Activision yet kept their IP intact. That tends to be how it works. Just as PoE is still the IP of GGG (or a person connected to GGG), it does not belong to Tencent. What Leyou can do is tell DE to stop making WF, that is it pretty much, that is the say they have in it. But that also means that an independant newly started company can take over the IP in such a case. It belongs to some person or persons really and that IP may date as far back as Dark Sector. This kinda turns out like the Angela/Spawn split, where Angela suddenly became a part of Marvel but Spawn never did. Not everything is tied to the obtainment of a company when it comes to IPs.

Regarding servers. Yes the quality is based on distance, but that is where the issues stop. And when people talk about dedicated servers they mostly mean world wide implementation of several hubs across the planet. And those that have a good connection will see an improvement because the whole peer-to-peer issue is removed. It doesnt matter if you have 7, 24, 100 or 1000mb lines if you end up with a bad host. Your internet will do practically 0 if your host has bad hardware, downloads S#&$ in the background or has a family that streams different things throughout the house. Your internet speed will barely impact how well the host handles the data, that is all on his end. That is the same reason why your internet wont matter if you try to migrate to such a host.

A dedicated server removes all this because it is dedicated to one job and one job only, pass information between clients through hardware combined to do just that. You will never have an individual interaction with any other player, so if that player who would maybe turn out as a host otherwise lags, it wont impact any of the other 3 players because all the info comes from the slave server. The impact he will have on the group is simply that he lags, if he were the host he would instead make everything for everyone lag, no matter their rig or connection because he would be the bottleneck.

So no, we cant afford it, because we cannot buy a guaranteed good host even for all the money in the world.

We're talking about several millions of dollars worth of contracts set up with several new partners worldwide, but no, Leyou will nicely stand by and watch, sure. We're not talking about next tennogen skin here.

Yes, DE owns the IP, but anything that impacts the revenue at the end is Leyou's territory. That is why you buy a company, you don't do it out if charity.

 

If you have a good connection, and are lucky enough to not be too far from server, it won't change a thing. Since, appart from that once-in-a-month occurence of bad host, you'll just go from good to good. But you'll never get as good as when you are the host, this won't happen anymore, as opposed to 1/4 chances. Because yeah, between setting ping limit and having a decent connection, I very rarely find a bad host.

If you have a bad connection, you won't connect to a dserver any better than any host. You'll go from variably bad, with an accosional host that lives next block, to regularly always as bad as before.

So it'll only have a great impact for the middle ground, those bad enough to see a little difference, but also good enough for it to make a difference. Yes it would improve stuff overall, but it's far from the magical solution to every problem it is made to be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Fallen77 said:

If you have a good connection, and are lucky enough to not be too far from server, it won't change a thing. Since, appart from that once-in-a-month occurence of bad host, you'll just go from good to good. But you'll never get as good as when you are the host, this won't happen anymore, as opposed to 1/4 chances. Because yeah, between setting ping limit and having a decent connection, I very rarely find a bad host.

If you have a bad connection, you won't connect to a dserver any better than any host. You'll go from variably bad, with an accosional host that lives next block, to regularly always as bad as before.

So it'll only have a great impact for the middle ground, those bad enough to see a little difference, but also good enough for it to make a difference. Yes it would improve stuff overall, but it's far from the magical solution to every problem it is made to be.

 

Big if true lad, we should seriously go on the forums of all the served-based PVE games and and warn that they are wasting money on the servers when you can rely to p2p since nothing changes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Fallen77 said:

We're talking about several millions of dollars worth of contracts set up with several new partners worldwide, but no, Leyou will nicely stand by and watch, sure. We're not talking about next tennogen skin here.

Yes, DE owns the IP, but anything that impacts the revenue at the end is Leyou's territory. That is why you buy a company, you don't do it out if charity.

 

If you have a good connection, and are lucky enough to not be too far from server, it won't change a thing. Since, appart from that once-in-a-month occurence of bad host, you'll just go from good to good. But you'll never get as good as when you are the host, this won't happen anymore, as opposed to 1/4 chances. Because yeah, between setting ping limit and having a decent connection, I very rarely find a bad host.

If you have a bad connection, you won't connect to a dserver any better than any host. You'll go from variably bad, with an accosional host that lives next block, to regularly always as bad as before.

So it'll only have a great impact for the middle ground, those bad enough to see a little difference, but also good enough for it to make a difference. Yes it would improve stuff overall, but it's far from the magical solution to every problem it is made to be.

 

Yes it will always be better, even in a case where you'd be the host. Less data traffic, better performance and so on. There is zero downsides to dedicated servers, except for the downsides people make up because they lack the understanding of how much of a positive impact dedicated servers have. 

The only thing that would get "worse" is solo-play, if they for some very odd and extremely stupid reason decides to give solo-players their own instance on a dedicated server over running the current setup of server interaction upon entering and exiting a solo session. But in reality that would never be an issue because DE simply arent stupid.

Also the bad connection you are talking about died in the late 90's. Those that are still effected by it are an extreme outlier minority, they wont notice a difference either way and very likely dont care about their gaming experience to begin with. 512 or even 256 kbs is enough for a stable connection, just as it was nearly 20 years ago. As I said earlier, I played on all kinds of EU and US servers years ago and 512 kbs was enough to get stable low ping even back then. And barely anyone runs with that type of (or lower) connection these days.

You also claim that your ping limit does something. Well it doesnt. It simply doesnt work for matchmaking. I can set it to 50, 100, 200, 250, 500 and the outcome is always the same, completely random matchmaking. It is completely neglected. And if you get a once in a month bad host incident you cant be playing much. I get it a few times per day depending how many missions I run. I suspect you often sign up with atleast one friend and not solo very often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Il y a 2 heures, SneakyErvin a dit :

Yes it will always be better, even in a case where you'd be the host. Less data traffic, better performance and so on. There is zero downsides to dedicated servers, except for the downsides people make up because they lack the understanding of how much of a positive impact dedicated servers have. 

The only thing that would get "worse" is solo-play, if they for some very odd and extremely stupid reason decides to give solo-players their own instance on a dedicated server over running the current setup of server interaction upon entering and exiting a solo session. But in reality that would never be an issue because DE simply arent stupid.

Also the bad connection you are talking about died in the late 90's. Those that are still effected by it are an extreme outlier minority, they wont notice a difference either way and very likely dont care about their gaming experience to begin with. 512 or even 256 kbs is enough for a stable connection, just as it was nearly 20 years ago. As I said earlier, I played on all kinds of EU and US servers years ago and 512 kbs was enough to get stable low ping even back then. And barely anyone runs with that type of (or lower) connection these days.

You also claim that your ping limit does something. Well it doesnt. It simply doesnt work for matchmaking. I can set it to 50, 100, 200, 250, 500 and the outcome is always the same, completely random matchmaking. It is completely neglected. And if you get a once in a month bad host incident you cant be playing much. I get it a few times per day depending how many missions I run. I suspect you often sign up with atleast one friend and not solo very often.

You can't get better than being the host, so yeah there's that.

You suspect wrong, I play around 1 to 2 hours everyday, always on pub matchmaking. And I clearly notice the wait time getting longer (or me getting host more often) when I twick the slider. If you don't get a difference and have problems all the time, it means the problem is coming from your end, not the host. And dservers would not change much, you'd still get a bunch of lag if your connection can't follow to begin with.

Once again, it ain't magical.

And the bad connections I'm talking about exist, they are all over this thread, you being one of them it seems.

As you said, with a bad co, you get stable LOW ping, your word. I agreed from the start that Dservers are more stable, but you're still laging.

Dance around it all you want, it has limits, and won't fix everything. I rest my case.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the very least we should have a "do not wish to host" option. Anyone in my host games gets 1300 ping and there isn't anything I can do about it. Even that "i am on a laptop" setting doesn't make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Il y a 2 heures, Neuerwinter a dit :

Big if true lad, we should seriously go on the forums of all the served-based PVE games and and warn that they are wasting money on the servers when you can rely to p2p since nothing changes

Some mighty oversimplification here.

I did not say that. 

Good co goes from good to good, barely anything noticeable.

Bad co goes from bad to bad, if you can't connect properly to any host, you'll still lag a bunch ton with servers.

Only the middle ground will see some improvement, and nothing stellar like yall believe. I never said something as stupid as "it won't change anything"

But I guess it's much easier to put words in my mouth rather than engaging with what I'm actually saying right ? Don't worry kid, one day you won't be intimidated by actual discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Fallen77 said:

I never said something as stupid as "it won't change anything"

Not to undermine you (I do agree with what you're saying regarding servers), but:

4 hours ago, Fallen77 said:

If you have a good connection, and are lucky enough to not be too far from server, it won't change a thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
il y a 2 minutes, Corvid a dit :

Not to undermine you (I do agree with what you're saying regarding servers), but:

 

Did you miss the pretty big "if" at the beginning of the sentence you just quoted ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fallen77 said:

Did you miss the pretty big "if" at the beginning of the sentence you just quoted ?

Hey, just pointing out where the confusion's coming from. Don't shoot the messenger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fallen77 said:

You can't get better than being the host, so yeah there's that.

You suspect wrong, I play around 1 to 2 hours everyday, always on pub matchmaking. And I clearly notice the wait time getting longer (or me getting host more often) when I twick the slider. If you don't get a difference and have problems all the time, it means the problem is coming from your end, not the host. And dservers would not change much, you'd still get a bunch of lag if your connection can't follow to begin with.

Once again, it ain't magical.

And the bad connections I'm talking about exist, they are all over this thread, you being one of them it seems.

As you said, with a bad co, you get stable LOW ping, your word. I agreed from the start that Dservers are more stable, but you're still laging.

Dance around it all you want, it has limits, and won't fix everything. I rest my case.

 

Yes, you can get better than being the host. Saying you cant means you have no real clue about this.

There are several things that will improve for a "former" host when moving over to a dedicated system. It will simply take that much less resources from your PC and work your connection less aswell. When you are the host you send your data to all the clients aswell as recieving the data from every single client and passing it on to the others. When you are on a dedicated system, that same player that was the host now only sends and recieves data to/from one single entity, the server, which then provides it to everyone as needed.

You would not get a bunch of lag on dedicated servers, unless the servers are bad. It also doesnt have anything to do with connections as much as hardware problems with hosts, or their line fluctuating badly due to outside bandwidth consuming activites. We the clients cannot do anything about that. When you sit at 50 ping and still experience lag like you had a connection in the 1k range to the host it very much doesnt come down to your broadband, it comes down to whatever activities the host has going on his system and no matter how much bandwidth you have he will still be the bottleneck and the issue.

In the end, you are simply wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Yes, you can get better than being the host. Saying you cant means you have no real clue about this.

There are several things that will improve for a "former" host when moving over to a dedicated system. It will simply take that much less resources from your PC and work your connection less aswell. When you are the host you send your data to all the clients aswell as recieving the data from every single client and passing it on to the others. When you are on a dedicated system, that same player that was the host now only sends and recieves data to/from one single entity, the server, which then provides it to everyone as needed.

You would not get a bunch of lag on dedicated servers, unless the servers are bad. It also doesnt have anything to do with connections as much as hardware problems with hosts, or their line fluctuating badly due to outside bandwidth consuming activites. We the clients cannot do anything about that. When you sit at 50 ping and still experience lag like you had a connection in the 1k range to the host it very much doesnt come down to your broadband, it comes down to whatever activities the host has going on his system and no matter how much bandwidth you have he will still be the bottleneck and the issue.

In the end, you are simply wrong.

You're making a bad trade here. Computing resource and bandwidth can be beaten by having good hardware and good network infrastructure/service provider. Latency by distance is usually by physical limitations, infrastructure and design beyond reasonable control. There will be plenty of circumstances where certain regions can have good local infrastructure but poor regional or international connection due to under sea cables, poor routing and physical distance. Between using 20% more from my system or 20ms latency(This actually makes a very big difference when you're using transference a lot), I'm always going to take that 20% hit because my system is reliable enough for me to not be concerned with it.

Your dedicated servers are just as susceptible to any problem that a regular host may face. You're only providing some level of assurance on hardware and some network infrastructure. If the route between you and the server is a problem it's going to affect you the exact same way it does when you're connecting to a bad host. You are also placing all your eggs into one basket, I hope you understand that it comes with its own set of risks.

Also, the amount of data being received does not really change by relaying the information though a node. You are still receiving movement and entity data from the other 3 players, it's just packaged onto 1 connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RX-3DR said:

You're making a bad trade here. Computing resource and bandwidth can be beaten by having good hardware and good network infrastructure/service provider. Latency by distance is usually by physical limitations, infrastructure and design beyond reasonable control. There will be plenty of circumstances where certain regions can have good local infrastructure but poor regional or international connection due to under sea cables, poor routing and physical distance. Between using 20% more from my system or 20ms latency(This actually makes a very big difference when you're using transference a lot), I'm always going to take that 20% hit because my system is reliable enough for me to not be concerned with it.

Your dedicated servers are just as susceptible to any problem that a regular host may face. You're only providing some level of assurance on hardware and some network infrastructure. If the route between you and the server is a problem it's going to affect you the exact same way it does when you're connecting to a bad host. You are also placing all your eggs into one basket, I hope you understand that it comes with its own set of risks.

Also, the amount of data being received does not really change by relaying the information though a node. You are still receiving movement and entity data from the other 3 players, it's just packaged onto 1 connection.

Yeah a dedicated server is also susceptible, but not nearly to the degree of peer-to-peer.

I can count the times I've had issues on dedicated servers in the last 20 years on my fingers and toes pretty much and that is while playing from Sweden for nearly 8 years on US based WoW servers, a few years on US based DaoC and SWG servers aswell as 3 and a half years in Marvel Heroes. Only one single game gave me repeated issues on US (claimed to be EU) servers and that was during the months I played FFXIV. I even PvPed like a madman in both DaoC, SWG and WoW and never had it impact my performance being that far away.

What you guys are doing is using extremes to try and argue something when the reality is far from those scenarios. You not only go to extremes to paint up issues with dedicated servers, you go to extremes paining up a fluffy cloud experience with WF peer-to-peer. Like claiming you barely have host issues etc. while still playing fairly much daily. It is nothing but pure BS at that point.

Also, you are losing extremely little with 20ms on transferance, unless you are already at a very high latency, with bad hardware and a slow screen. 20ms really only has an impact in competative shooter games where the difference in ms between two players can be the difference between win or loss. WF is a co-op horde shooter where it simply isnt noticable. I've been having 150ms games with flawless transferance just as I've had 40ms games with horrible transferance due to the host playing on a potato with fast connection.

I think you also fail to understand what I'm saying about the data recieved/sent. What I'm saying is that with peer-to-peer the whole game gets effected if one person has issues i.e the host, everyone is impacted by that. With a dedicated server only the person who has the problems is impacted by them. It doesnt matter if his information fails to reach the server or if he fails to get data from the server, the other 3 can still play without a single issues. If he fails to send data to the server to relay it to you it has no actual impact, except for you seeing him running into a wall or ape-firing his gun into the void. The important part is that the mission data comes directly from the server so you can carry on independantly from the person who has connection issues in that game. 

But I bet you are going to say "but the dedicated server can get connection issues too". Well yes, if the company is completely handicapped and pick any third world isp for their service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Fallen77 said:

Some mighty oversimplification here.

I did not say that. 

Good co goes from good to good, barely anything noticeable.

Bad co goes from bad to bad, if you can't connect properly to any host, you'll still lag a bunch ton with servers.

Only the middle ground will see some improvement, and nothing stellar like yall believe. I never said something as stupid as "it won't change anything"

But I guess it's much easier to put words in my mouth rather than engaging with what I'm actually saying right ? Don't worry kid, one day you won't be intimidated by actual discussions.

you literally said it again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fun fact tenno con is paid by sponsors so DE doesnt spend as "millions" on tenno con

and steve said in a interview with ars technica making servers would be great its just a huge investment and with how much reward.

but seriously other games use peer to peer and have way less problems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...