Jump to content

Archived

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

(XB1)KnightSlayer411

Warframe is successful enough to have dedicated servers

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, RastaManGames said:

2019... Host migration still scarier than Stalker or Wolf...

First, when have either of those been scary, second host migrations while annoying only cost me a few plat at most on relic missions. or creds from profit taker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-08-03 at 4:44 PM, Fallen77 said:

-Snip-

The issue is that you fail to understand where the problem lies and what dedicated servers will do.

You keep bringing up "if you have problems connecting to hosts you'll have the same problems connecting to a dedicated server.". That just isnt the case because the issue isnt that people have trouble connecting to hosts because the clinet has bad internet, the issues is that the game picks bad hosts due to a very flawed matchmaking system. Your actual connection and rig has very little impact on things unless you are the host.

And since a dedicated server would remove hosts and be set up with reliable bandwidth aswell as proper hardware those issues would be gone since there would no longer be bad hosts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Il y a 17 heures, SneakyErvin a dit :

The issue is that you fail to understand where the problem lies and what dedicated servers will do.

You keep bringing up "if you have problems connecting to hosts you'll have the same problems connecting to a dedicated server.". That just isnt the case because the issue isnt that people have trouble connecting to hosts because the clinet has bad internet, the issues is that the game picks bad hosts due to a very flawed matchmaking system. Your actual connection and rig has very little impact on things unless you are the host.

And since a dedicated server would remove hosts and be set up with reliable bandwidth aswell as proper hardware those issues would be gone since there would no longer be bad hosts.

Lol. So it's never anyone's fault but the host then ?  Always matchmaking and never people with bad co themselves uh ?

All those people claiming that they have all the time horrible experience with bad host, yeah, a majority of games you're lagging but it's always the host uh ? Never ever on their end uh ? If we get servers one day, I garantee you we'll find all the same dudes in a " DE is succesfull enough to have better servers" thread. Because many refuse to see any problem from their side.

Now that's their experience. But for mine : as soon as I upgraded my internet, following yours and many others logic, I went from getting only bad hosts to getting only good hosts. Playing between 1 and 2 hours everyday, rarely being the host myself. Did I got better host rng ? Or could it be just me getting better internet ? Now that's my experience, either you take both or none into account. 

And if it was that much a matchmaking issue, absolutly everyone playing the game would suffer this problem right ? Since even the best connections would get matched all the time with bad hosts, shouldn't we see this topic twice as much as the daily "nightwave too hard" thread ? Wouldn't all the uninspired youtubers constantly bash us with this topic rather than the everlasting "content drought" concerns ?

And don't be like the dude you jumped to defend. From the very start I've been advocating for nuances. As I said from the start, of course it is generally more efficient than p2p, but it's nothing as strong as many are making it to be. I've played all kind of server based games, on many setups, it won't make any bad rig/co work better.

If you're laggy, no matter the system involved, you'll stay laggy, slightly more stable with servers, but still laggy.

If you have good internet, (from my expérience) you'll go from having an overall good experience with a pretty rare actual bad host, to having an averall good experience with slightly less hickups.

So, as I said from the start, only a portion of the playerbase (about half I'd estimate) will see actual improvements. Those that have a bad enough connection to really feel the impact of a non-perfect host, but not as bad that they can still connect about properly to a majority of host. They will see an improvement, of course, I never said that servers will have no impact on everyone, that would be laughable.

If it was a matchmaking issue, everyone would be impacted the same by random host selection, it would be a more present topic than "WF is too easy". From what I've seen on this forum, through friend's experiences and my own experience, it is absolutly not an issue shared by the majority of players.

Thus, I hardly see how it would be only matchmaking. Are half the players consistently dodging this army of bad host you seem to be talking about ?

Leading into what I think is mostly happening : people on the internet trying to blame the entire world for their shortcomings, with more or less good faith. The same way, for exemple, when someone dies in OW, it's always blizzard servers, or the guy was camping, or this hero is OP, or the map is glitched, or team did not do X or Y. It's never " I should have done that", and you see this type of behaviour everywhere in life.   Don't get me wrong, I'm sure some people are asking for servers in all good faith, having done what they could on their end and understanding very well what it would do, not that it's the second coming of Christ, that will get everyone at 10 ping. But it seems to me like there's a big part that would just rather scream at DE than facing their own limitations.

 

Which all feeds into my original point

Servers would be nice, it would be a cool little qol upgrade, BUT :

It might very well cost even more that many have estimated in this thread.

Its impact will be barely noticeable for a good part of the playerbase, which would have waited a big chunk of time for not much.

It would be a very weak selling point, bringing nearly no new players by itself, maybe a few returning veterans but not much else.

Which is why I think it's very unlikely that we'll get some servers anytime soon. Because of those many nuances I pointed out in many ways.

 

Again, I would love if everything turned out right and we get servers, that would be a Very-very-tiny to somewhat confortable improvement, depending on the player. But all the answers I had (when it's not some kid incapable to finish reading a sentence), were all saying basically "No, it will be leagues better for everyone no matter the situation, it will fix everything, walk on water and turn said water into wine" (I'm pushing it a bit for comedy, but you see what I mean) which is ridiculous. Refuting "servers are useless" makes sense, refuting "there are many nuances to take into account" is just backward.

And I know a good part of my argument is based on personnal experience, take out of this what you want. But, until we get some official study on this topic, we have nothing but everyone's personnal experience to go off. So either you take everyone's, mine's included, into account, or you stop arguing since no one's statement can be viable.

Share this post


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

Lol. So it's never anyone's fault but the host then ?  Always matchmaking and never people with bad co themselves uh ?

If you're laggy, no matter the system involved, you'll stay laggy, slightly more stable with servers, but still laggy.

So, as I said from the start, only a portion of the playerbase (about half I'd estimate) will see actual improvements. Those that have a bad enough connection to really feel the impact of a non-perfect host, but not as bad that they can still connect about properly to a majority of host. They will see an improvement, of course, I never said that servers will have no impact on everyone, that would be laughable.

If it was a matchmaking issue, everyone would be impacted the same by random host selection, it would be a more present topic than "WF is too easy". From what I've seen on this forum, through friend's experiences and my own experience, it is absolutly not an issue shared by the majority of players.

Regarding point one. Yes it is about the matchmaking and the host. We cant do anything about that no matter the rig or connection we have.

Regarding point two. No, you dont get it. "System" is a very wide term. If you have a S#&$ rig you will get laggy performance (graphical) with hosts, servers or solo. Dedicated servers would shield us from them. Currently we cant do anything about that issue either, it doesnt matter how good our rig or connection is because theirs wont process the info and send it fast enough. If they have a slow connection aswell it will be ever more of an issue. You can see who has a bad rig in a match and who has poor latency. Poor rig means you can have a perfect ping to them and lag like crazy eitherway because their rig cant handle the data fast enough. Like the games where you get 30ms and still have 5 second delays on your transferance or see mobs doing the twitchy Ringu ghost-girl cosplay as they move. Then you have the ones with great rigs (and possibly great connection) but are physicallly too far away so you get lag. In those matches you may have 250ms but everything looks like it moves normaly and transferance feels smooth but the buffs fail to land. You may need to lead your projectiles slightly more than otherwise and mobs may have a slightly delayed death animation.

Regarding point three. Again, it has nothing to do with the client's connection, only the host. That is due to a poor matchmaking system. It simply doesnt look for the best candidate for hosting. It is silly at times how bad the matchmaking performs. You may get a russian host when the other 3 happen to be a swede a brit and a frenchy. A proper MM system would take a deeper scan and in such a setup likely place the swede as the host since he'd be the middle ground ping value among all 4 in the group. And a really useful system would also check other connectivity.

Regarding point four. Seriously, have you not seen the masses of "can we get a fix to host migration" over the years? That is all due to the wide spread issue of bad hosts, either initial or as the secondary during a host migration. There is a reason why people leave groups as soon as things like the Hemocyte is killed, in order to avoid a possible bad host migration experience incase the current host leaves. Leaving before such a thing happens means you connect back to yourself, so very rarely does that bug out. And those host migration threads come up constantly, especially around events and not to mention early on when people ran arbitrations right after it was released. #*!% ESO had the same massive issues aswell, so many host migration failures it was impossible to run it in groups for the first week or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-07-25 at 10:38 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.

Please read the following with a monotone voice for maximum effect: No man, you are wrong DE is barely making any money, servers cost money, you are being unreasonable, do you want them to go bankrupt? servers are way too expensive, you should just buy plat.

I would at least ask for a better implementation that goes client-side to track all the stuff on every client instead of relying on the host, but then I will get hit with the same old argument that DE is too poor to try fixing anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

I don't want to deal with latency to a server.
Like, it could, but I'd rather just be the host.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

DE won't even hire people for customer support, I don't think they would spend money on servers. But yeah, I agree.

On 2019-07-25 at 5:07 PM, sleepychewbacca said:

Do you not want content for a long time? This is how you don't get content for a long time.

Well, we already have that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...