The game doesn't stop during a host migration. Another reason to support dedicated servers.

[Jarriaga]

While this topic has the community split which each side presenting why they support or dislike the idea of dedicated servers, the majority of players can agree that hosts migrations are a problem. A problem that is further amplified when there's a host migration during an Arbitration.

In the past, I have experienced losing my frame and weapon Arbitration bonuses because the host left and forced a migration. This can completely break your build when you change your mods to capitalize on that 300% power bonus. It can mean leaving your current left-over build useless, which in turn means you now have to leave or risk dying.

Yesterday, I experienced this problem's most extreme scenario during a Disruption Arbitration after the original host left and caused a migration. While this happened, 1 conduit was destroyed and 1 player was killed because the game kept going until the host migration process was completed. Something that wouldn't have happened with dedicated servers.

And it's not only in Arbitrations. This can also be seen in ESO as well; efficiency continues to drop during a host migration until the new host is selected and the game resumes for the players. I have experienced efficiency drops of 35% during this process, which can be hard to recover depending on who is playing with you, the map, and the enemy faction.

Some players are concerned about distance to the servers and DE's bottom line as arguments against dedicated servers. They even propose workarounds like setting your PING limit to the absolute lowest, which not only decreases the number of players that you can connect with, but doesn't address the problem when paired with someone with a better connection hosting over you and that person still leaves, which is something you can not control.

DE should consider dedicated servers at least for Arbitration missions. The pool size of players who have unlocked Arbitrations is minuscule when compared to the overall number of total players, which greatly reduces the investment costs that would be required to set them up. Distance is not a concern if server distribution is focused around the highest number of Arbitration players, and server costs for DE could be minimized if players like are allowed to speak with their wallets and pay a maintenance fee for the upkeep of the servers. If this is implemented with an option to still opt-out of dedicated servers using the current connection selection toggle (Solo, Public, Friends-only, Invite-only, Dedicated Server) I fail to see how this would be a problem for those who don't want dedicated servers unless they happen to believe that those who want them outnumber them to the point they wouldn't be able to join P2P games consistently, which goes against their usual arguments of "the vast majority of players are against dedicated servers".

Not being at the mercy of another player is an advantage that outweighs any downside in my opinion.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Jarriaga

[iGnome21]

First thing : we need a benchmark to assert computer power towards being host and having a "hosting score" which determines the priority in migration, but also the time you have to wait looking for matchmaking before becoming first host.

Without this, toasters will continue to be hosts with good ping, it's far worse and cause so much more game latency.

 

Second thing : also take into account the "quit mission" stats to determine who is the worst and potential leaver to not get the host priority.

Edited October 14, 2019 by iGnome21

[Jarriaga]

1 minute ago, iGnome21 said:

First thing : we need a benchmark to assert computer power towards being host and having a "hosting score" which determines the priority in migration, but also the time you have to wait looking for matchmaking before becoming first host.

Without this, toasters will continue to be hosts with good ping, it's far worse and cause so much more game latency.

That would work towards addressing performance-related migrations, but not those caused by the host leaving for XYZ reason.

[iGnome21]

il y a 1 minute, Jarriaga a dit :

That would work towards addressing performance-related migrations, but not those caused by the host leaving for XYZ reason.

Yes i added it in second points. Those ideas are cheap countermeasures to bad network code that doesnt involve dedicated servers if they keep refusing the idea.

If those two were implemented it would be less of a hassle to rely on a gamble for good hosting, i agree with you.

[DarthIronclad]

Wonder is it possible to have the game tell if a user's machine and Internet is cabrable of hosting a game without causing major lag issues for the host which in turn lags everyone in the squad. 

[Rawbeard]

yeah ok, but are you willing to pay for dedicated servers?

[iGnome21]

Empyrean might become the tombstone of the game if performance issues are not fixed, especially in missions hosting two squads, both on space and on ground.

They get tons of suggestions, but never act.

At least, critical missions involving rare loot such as arbitration should be hosted by DE, as they partially do with conclave with a dirt low playerbase...

[Hyro1]

Anyone mind posting the cost of dedicated servers and their upkeep so that their reminded how it likely isn't possible for it to occur. If anything DE should just change how their P2P works, make the players and objective invulnerable until one of them loads in, or pause the game entirely until on of them loads in. Other problems like loss of loot, or being unable to reconnect, those problems won't get fixed even if there are deciated servers, because those aren't problems with the host disconnecting, those are problems with the client being unable to reconnect.

[Jarriaga]

27 minutes ago, iGnome21 said:

Yes i added it in second points. Those ideas are cheap countermeasures to bad network code that doesnt involve dedicated servers if they keep refusing the idea.

If those two were implemented it would be less of a hassle to rely on a gamble for good hosting, i agree with you.

I saw your edit now. Indeed, that could work as well.

[Letter13]

9 minutes ago, Hyro1 said:

Anyone mind posting the cost of dedicated servers and their upkeep so that their reminded how...

Depending on where the dedicated servers are located, how many players/games/instances are loaded up on a single blade, the actual hardware of the servers, whether the servers are owned by DE or leased through a third party...

DE would probably be looking at a cost of upkeep in the range of $16M to $50M (or even more) USD/year. It's not trivial, and would likely require players to pay a monthly fee in order to play the game.

[Jarriaga]

2 hours ago, Hyro1 said:

Anyone mind posting the cost of dedicated servers and their upkeep so that their reminded how it likely isn't possible for it to occur.

 

1 hour ago, Letter13 said:

Depending on where the dedicated servers are located, how many players/games/instances are loaded up on a single blade, the actual hardware of the servers, whether the servers are owned by DE or leased through a third party...

DE would probably be looking at a cost of upkeep in the range of $16M to $50M (or even more) USD/year. It's not trivial, and would likely require players to pay a monthly fee in order to play the game.

That post and those costs are only relevant when considering the total number of Warframe players, not those only playing Arbitrations.

As per Steam achievement stats, only 5.3% of players have completed The Sacrifice. Without completing The Sacrifice, you can not fight the Ropalolyst, so it can be used as a baseline to measure how many players have cleared the entire Star Chart and have unlocked Arbitrations. Using stats for the average number of unique peak last month (80,466), we can infer that, at the very top (Assuming the absolute best-case scenario of 5.3% of players having unlocked Arbitrations) that's only 4,023 players.

I seriously doubt that Steam has fewer active players than the stand-alone version, and even then, I also doubt that they are more active than Steam players. Entertaining this idea with a generous 50% split, we are now only dealing with 8,046 players.

Let's add consoles now.

Xbox (Trueachievements) - 6,749 players have completed The Sacrifice (6% of tracked players).

PS4: No reliable data. Let's assume 20% more than XBox =  8,098

Switch: No reliable data. Let's assume 60% less than Xbox: = 2.699

Those are such tiny numbers that the upkeep costs for the pricing breakdown that floats around this board is so far away that it becomes meaningless. More so considering those players like me who would be willing to pay for dedicated servers, so it would not be on DE's sole pocket.

2 hours ago, Hyro1 said:

If anything DE should just change how their P2P works, make the players and objective invulnerable until one of them loads in, or pause the game entirely until on of them loads in.

That could certainly help, yes. That is, assuming that the game holds a "snapshot" of how it was before the migration so you can also keep your Arbitration bonus.

2 hours ago, Hyro1 said:

 Other problems like loss of loot, or being unable to reconnect, those problems won't get fixed even if there are deciated servers, because those aren't problems with the host disconnecting, those are problems with the client being unable to reconnect.

I don't think players who have distance-related connectivity issues would choose to opt-in to an optional, toggable dedicated server option that is only available if you're paying for it. That's a non-issue. As for the rest? If I know my connection is stable-enough and fast-enough that I rarely get disconnected on my end, then it would certainly improve my experience by a noticeable margin.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Jarriaga

[(XBOX)ECCHO SIERRA]

1 hour ago, Jarriaga said:

Stuff

Oh look, another "we NEED dedicated servers" thread. Thank god. We really needed one more.

 

Okay.

 

*since DE hasn't even mentioned considering this it will probably not happen for a long time, if ever.

*yet again someone forgets to adequately consider the cost and complexity of switching to dedicated servers but DE is just supposed to eat it.

*friendly reminder that dedicated servers always work 100% of the time and never have lag or outages.

*this thread probably doesnt belong in general discussion anyway.

[Jarriaga]

53 minutes ago, Rawbeard said:

yeah ok, but are you willing to pay for dedicated servers?

I said so in my opening post in case you either didn't read it or chose to ignore that section, so yes, I would definitely pay for it.

[Jarriaga]

1 hour ago, (XB1)ECCHO SIERRA said:

*since DE hasn't even mentioned considering this it will probably not happen for a long time, if ever.

You don't know if they are considering it or not. DE not addressing a topic does not mean they are not considering it. Did anyone see that Ember rework coming so soon considering DE had not even hinted at her being reworked prior to its announcement? No. It was only mentioned by Scott a week before its announcement in a way that implied they may start working her after Vauban, not that it was so far ahead done that it would come alongside him.

Quite the contrary. They more often that not give a flat-out "no" to things they are not looking to implement, such as frame gender swap skins.

1 hour ago, (XB1)ECCHO SIERRA said:

*yet again someone forgets to adequately consider the cost and complexity of switching to dedicated servers but DE is just supposed to eat it.

Not relevant if it's focused around the number of players playing Arbitrations, which are 10,000 at the absolute best per platform. Not to mention, those of us who do want it would be willing to pay for them, yes. More so if it is an optional toggle that would still allow you to keep your oh so wonderful P2P connection if you choose.

1 hour ago, (XB1)ECCHO SIERRA said:

*friendly reminder that dedicated servers always work 100% of the time and never have lag or outages.

They lagging or not working 10% of the time is still miles ahead an improvement over host migration issues. No solution is perfect. No one is saying this will 100% address all problems at all times. Only that it would still be a lot better than what we currently have.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Jarriaga

[trst]

Or, now hear me out here, DE implements the mission pause feature from fissures as a migration grace period.

Boom, problem (potentially) solved for people dying during load-in without needing to jump the gun and go for dedicated servers that won't even solve the underlying issue.

[Jarriaga]

2 minutes ago, trst said:

Or, now hear me out here, DE implements the mission pause feature from fissures as a migration grace period.

Boom, problem (potentially) solved for people dying during load-in without needing to jump the gun and go for dedicated servers that won't even solve the underlying issue.

It would not solve it unless it keeps a "snapshot" of the game's state prior to migration. That means, keeping you Arbitration bonus and melee combo counter.

If that is done then I'd agree there would be no need for Dedicated Servers. However, I have never seen a P2P game do that. The session kinda "resets" during the migration process. Hence why so many thing break.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Jarriaga

[belanya]

0 reason for DE to pay for servers.

The actual system works, players keep playing even if there are some complaints times to times.

Maybe stopping the p2p and paying for servers could allow the game to reach more players but not so much.

So yeah, why spending few millions (i higly doubt on the usual : between 15 and 50 millions) for almost 0 return?

Edited October 14, 2019 by belanya

[Jarriaga]

26 minutes ago, belanya said:

0 reason for DE to pay for servers.

The actual system works, players keep playing even if there are some complaints times to times.

Maybe stopping the p2p and paying for servers could allow the game to reach more players but not so much.

So yeah, why spending few millions (i higly doubt on the usual : between 15 and 50 millions) for almost 0 return?

One reason would be so they are not forced to rethink their own gamemodes for the worse in order to accommodate hosts leaving missions. Case in point? Again, Arbitrations. The reason they gave for introducing the dreadful and mostly hated revival system was to address hosts leaving the mission after they died. That's something what wouldn't have been necessary with dedicated servers.

And for the future? Squad link. While we don't know how that will work, I'm having a hard time seeing it work with multiple host migrations now on both ends (Main squad, support squad).

Edited October 14, 2019 by Jarriaga

[Chaemyerelis]

Hah yeah like anything can even kill you during migration. 🙄

The focus loss during ESO is annoying tho

Edited October 14, 2019 by Chaemyerelis

[Jarriaga]

2 minutes ago, Chaemyerelis said:

Hah yeah like anything can even kill you during migration. 🙄

Didn't kill me, but they did kill the Zephyr player. Also (And more importantly), a Conduit was destroyed. This directly affects the mission as we could have failed.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Jarriaga

[peterc3]

Who is going to pay to use a dedicated server for Arbitrations?

[Jarriaga]

6 minutes ago, peterc3 said:

Who is going to pay to use a dedicated server for Arbitrations?

I am, if given the chance to. I'd rather get reliable but paid than crappy but free.

Also, if you do not want to pay, you would not have to if it's an opt-in toggle as I proposed in my opening post.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Jarriaga

[Arcira]

The thing I don´t get is how other f2p games with less or more player can maintain server costs. Is warframe at a sweetspot where server costs per player are particulary expensive?

I´m no network expert but if I get it right there are several different P2P version and the one with a host is called centralized computing while there is another one called decentralized compunting where every participant gets all information needed in order to work independently. This would probably increase the amount of traffic by alot but with a good internet connection it´s apparently possible. There could be an option to turn this feature on/off and player with the same setting will be matched together. Doesn´t solve the problem for people with weaker systems/internet connection though.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Arcira

[Leyers_of_facade]

4 hours ago, Letter13 said:

Depending on where the dedicated servers are located, how many players/games/instances are loaded up on a single blade, the actual hardware of the servers, whether the servers are owned by DE or leased through a third party...

DE would probably be looking at a cost of upkeep in the range of $16M to $50M (or even more) USD/year. It's not trivial, and would likely require players to pay a monthly fee in order to play the game.

Interesting, may I ask where you get these numbers? I have personally been trying to find a good guess of the cost.

----------------

Anyway, if that figure from @Letter13is right, it would most certainly explain why DE (well Leyou) isn't quite willing to implement dedicated servers. 

From Leyou's (DE's parent group) interim report (link: http://leyoutech.com.hk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2019-Inteirm-en.pdf , also yes, they misspelt interim in the hyperlink  ) their EBITDA in the first 6 months of this year is merely 37.785 million USD, so even at 16M/year of upkeep (so lets say 8M/6 months), 8/37.785 = 21.17%, that would be quite a significant cost they will be taking, especially considering how revenue isn't likely going to increase in a similar level.

[XenMaster]

5 hours ago, Rawbeard said:

yeah ok, but are you willing to pay for dedicated servers?

All those with jobs can.