Jump to content
Dante Unbound: Share Bug Reports and Feedback Here! ×

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


Jarriaga
 Share

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Jarriaga said:

Am I supposed to be an altruistic soul that is considerate of other people on the other side of the world at the cost of my own enjoyment or what? At that point you'd have to be a masochist if you'd be willing to submit yourself to that instead of connecting to your closest servers. Convenience > The rest.

As a solution against host migration, it just creates an excuse for why there doesn't need to be anything done about host migration. It's basically a lottery on whether those dedicated servers are better for you on every individual case, and if it isn't, well tough luck, deal with 200ms or host migrations for living in the wrong place. How about this, we implement it but only in Asia and if you want to avoid host migrations, you have to put up with 400m latency on it for maybe 3 years when they decide to look at the issue again. DE has limited resources so if this was the bandaid solution to solve it, odds are, we aren't going to see any changes for a sizable amount of time since it would be reversing the value of their previous efforts.

43 minutes ago, Jarriaga said:

I have not seen a P2P game connection pausing the game though. Until I do, I'd rather go with personal experience and recommend dedicated servers since I have seen them working that way.

The game does pause when the Relic page pops up during Survival. Have a more safer transition upon host migration where one person designated as host, other players do not immediately connect but rather, have their game paused in the lost session to prepare for a better transition. You wait for the new host to recover the session, then that tells the other clients that the session is ready, other clients join to sync up their information with the new session. Players then hit ready and the session continues. Part of the reason why host migration transitions are rough is because the game drops them into an ongoing session just like a regular connection. Just because no one else has build the solution does not mean the problem is impossible.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, RX-3DR said:

As a solution against host migration, it just creates an excuse for why there doesn't need to be anything done about host migration.

They certainly could address host migration issues. I acknowledge that if those issues were addressed, I'd have no need for dedicated servers.

18 minutes ago, RX-3DR said:

It's basically a lottery on whether those dedicated servers are better for you on every individual case, and if it isn't, well tough luck, deal with 200ms or host migrations for living in the wrong place.

I've picked my poison. 200ms PING in a dedicated server is more acceptable to me than being at the mercy of another player when the game decides they have a better connection and won't let me host.

18 minutes ago, RX-3DR said:

How about this, we implement it but only in Asia and if you want to avoid host migrations, you have to put up with 400m latency on it for maybe 3 years when they decide to look at the issue again.

That is an extreme scenario that would require for DE to go out of their way to self-sabotage on the implementation. No way they'd concentrate their servers only in Asia.

18 minutes ago, RX-3DR said:

DE has limited resources so if this was the bandaid solution to solve it, odds are, we aren't going to see any changes for a sizable amount of time since it would be reversing the value of their previous efforts.

They are already reversing the value of their previous efforts, at least with regards to how the P2P system is killing their own game design choices. They had to gut Arbitrations because the initial core design was incompatible with a P2P system and hosts were leaving left and right after dying 1 minute in. That wouldn't have happened with dedicated servers.

18 minutes ago, RX-3DR said:

The game does pause when the Relic page pops up during Survival. Have a more safer transition upon host migration where one person designated as host, other players do not immediately connect but rather, have their game paused in the lost session to prepare for a better transition. You wait for the new host to recover the session, then that tells the other clients that the session is ready, other clients join to sync up their information with the new session. Players then hit ready and the session continues.

I think that's more related to the game giving you a mandatory timer to choose your relic than the game recognizing the timer needs to stop during a host migration. That's why you still lose your melee combo counter, because the game, rather than "freezing", resets and then asks you to select your relic again.

18 minutes ago, RX-3DR said:

Part of the reason why host migration transitions are rough is because the game drops them into an ongoing session just like a regular connection. Just because no one else has build the solution does not mean the problem is impossible.

I agree it does not mean it is impossible just because no one has done it before. It's just that I prefer a more pragmatic "I know what currently does work" approach.

Edited by Jarriaga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jarriaga said:

There's no need to compare because we already fit your extremely convenient worse-case scenario definition: A third world country fly speck of an island. Anything else would be moving the goalpost towards infrastructure development or telecommunications development.

Really? Because those are usually implicit in the description "third world" and "fly speck". What you are trying to pull is "I only have 999 million dollars in my bank account, so I don't count as a billionaire". 

You are a stone's throw from the "first world" infrastructure, and even though I pay for better speeds than you do, and can drive to the landing site for the Americas 1 and 2 cables in minutes, the larger distance that the signal must cover to get to the servers in the US means that my ping times will always be higher than what you are holding up as "this is your worst case scenario". Worse I also end up playing with people from the Lesser Antilles and I can guarantee that their connections are garbage compared to what you and I currently have. Updates that I can pull in a half of an hour, takes my St Lucian buddy many hours. 

So so, you need to reevaluate what "worst case" actually means. 

1 hour ago, Jarriaga said:

In my experience, their hardware, data plan and connection type all play a role. They get much better speeds when they visit me and go with a hardwired CAT-6 Gigabit cable. I'm on fiber while most of them are on wireless broadband.

All would play a role. But a major reason is that our different ISPs don't like dealing with one another, so the route almost always ends up including a server somewhere in the US, before coming back. Since some of the ISPs have acquired their previous competitors, occasionally you'll find that sort of route even if you are playing with someone who pays the same sort of bill as you do, to the same company. 

 

Nobody seems particularly inclined to clean up the the mess, so it's going to be around for a while. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Really? Because those are usually implicit in the description "third world" and "fly speck". What you are trying to pull is "I only have 999 million dollars in my bank account, so I don't count as a billionaire"

You are a stone's throw from the "first world" infrastructure, and even though I pay for better speeds than you do, and can drive to the landing site for the Americas 1 and 2 cables in minutes, the larger distance that the signal must cover to get to the servers in the US means that my ping times will always be higher than what you are holding up as "this is your worst case scenario". Worse I also end up playing with people from the Lesser Antilles and I can guarantee that their connections are garbage compared to what you and I currently have. Updates that I can pull in a half of an hour, takes my St Lucian buddy many hours. 

So so, you need to reevaluate what "worst case" actually means. 

Not quite. Santo Domingo has a relatively good infrastructure for telecommunications but it doesn't ammount much for anything else for the rest of the country and the Island as a whole. It is why DR is still a third world country. We just happen to be closer to the US, so there is a geographical advantage. That is just chance and luck, not development.

2 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

All would play a role. But a major reason is that our different ISPs don't like dealing with one another, so the route almost always ends up including a server somewhere in the US, before coming back. Since some of the ISPs have acquired their previous competitors, occasionally you'll find that sort of route even if you are playing with someone who pays the same sort of bill as you do, to the same company. 

 

Nobody seems particularly inclined to clean up the the mess, so it's going to be around for a while. 

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Jarriaga said:

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.

 

this make the dedicated servers irrelevant you are forgetting that every major city will need it's own server because ping increases as a function of distance every state in the US will need at least one server with some states requiring more thanks to size/demand and each server will have a maintenance cost... it is not cost effective especially at the low numbers you list this.  how ever they do need to work on improving the net code and or make more things client side (which could be a bad thing) but based on the numbers you list and the scale of the audience they are not worth it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Yamazuki said:

Forced dedicated servers then come with major drawbacks for anyone who doesn't play in a region populated enough to justify a dedicated server, so someone from Australia for example would be stuck connecting to Eu, NA or an Asian server, as is the case for most games. Then there's the drawbacks for massive regions like NA, where servers now a days are located on the East Coast, leaving anyone on the West stuck with anywhere from 100 to 150 ping or more. Even if they went with Chicago, a best case scenario would be 80-120 ping. This is before taking into account any routing issues that are not solved with dedicated servers.

hmmm based on that overwatch used likely a Texas or California based server based on the consistant 40-60 ping I had in NM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

All would play a role. But a major reason is that our different ISPs don't like dealing with one another, so the route almost always ends up including a server somewhere in the US, before coming back. Since some of the ISPs have acquired their previous competitors, occasionally you'll find that sort of route even if you are playing with someone who pays the same sort of bill as you do, to the same company. 

 

Nobody seems particularly inclined to clean up the the mess, so it's going to be around for a while. 

this is a likely problem in the states as well at my collage in NM I would maintain a stable 40-50 ping but at home in AZ i would suffer from an unstable ping at around 65 and up depending on the play session (I blame comcast the ISP I had in AZ do also note it is a ~4hour drive between the two)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, spirit_of_76 said:

this is a likely problem in the states as well at my collage in NM I would maintain a stable 40-50 ping but at home in AZ i would suffer from an unstable ping at around 65 and up depending on the play session (I blame comcast the ISP I had in AZ do also note it is a ~4hour drive between the two)

From what I've read elsewhere it's a pretty major issue for some people in the US, especially if they're more rural, or served by a single ISP. 

But imagine a whole country with the population of a large town or small city, and they're stuck in the boonies, and you'll have a good idea of what our "Small Island Developing States" are like. Some of us are fortunate to have a major fibre optic telecom trunk that we can connect to, but that's a fairly recent development and it's only been a couple of years since I was able to get off of the old and generally poorly maintained copper network (they rolled out fibre optics). A generation ago we'd just gotten ADSL in the major population centres. Before that, dialup internet was the order of the day. 

 

Stuff like that is why dedicated servers are not the panacea people think they are. You can't put them in a single spot, they're going to have to be spread out. That's a part of why pricing such a system is difficult, different countries, different laws, different prices. 

Edited by (PS4)guzmantt1977
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spirit_of_76 said:
 

this make the dedicated servers irrelevant you are forgetting that every major city will need it's own server because ping increases as a function of distance every state in the US will need at least one server with some states requiring more thanks to size/demand and each server will have a maintenance cost... it is not cost effective especially at the low numbers you list this.  how ever they do need to work on improving the net code and or make more things client side (which could be a bad thing) but based on the numbers you list and the scale of the audience they are not worth it)

Hahahahahaha like they're gonna add dedicated servers across the globe for one mode a lot of people dont even play

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Stuff like that is why dedicated servers are not the panacea people think they are. You can't put them in a single spot, they're going to have to be spread out. That's a part of why pricing such a system is difficult, different countries, different laws, different prices

just check war thunder they have dedicated servers but there are far to few servers in the for the size of the area

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2019-10-15 at 11:17 AM, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

From what I've read elsewhere it's a pretty major issue for some people in the US, especially if they're more rural, or served by a single ISP. 

But imagine a whole country with the population of a large town or small city, and they're stuck in the boonies, and you'll have a good idea of what our "Small Island Developing States" are like. Some of us are fortunate to have a major fibre optic telecom trunk that we can connect to, but that's a fairly recent development and it's only been a couple of years since I was able to get off of the old and generally poorly maintained copper network (they rolled out fibre optics). A generation ago we'd just gotten ADSL in the major population centres. Before that, dialup internet was the order of the day. 

 

Stuff like that is why dedicated servers are not the panacea people think they are. You can't put them in a single spot, they're going to have to be spread out. That's a part of why pricing such a system is difficult, different countries, different laws, different prices. 

Big patches of the USA are outside the range of fiber optics, and even DSL.  Where I live, the choices are:

1:  The local cable company.  This is allegedly high speed, but it's a shared loop and they tend to over-sell (because who's going to stop them?  It's not like they have competition.)  As a result, bandwidth drops off hard in the late afternoon when everyone is home from work and school and gets online at once.  It's also incredibly expensive, because the package that includes connection speeds of "up to" anything more than 10mbps is the most pricey, and comes with mandatory cable TV.  But it is super fast... at two in the morning when no one else is on.

2:  Wireless internet.  Basically a wi-fi connection to a central antenna.  Higher bandwidth than the DSL, but also comes with massive ping because of the number of connections just to get online.  (Computer to router, router to transceiver, transceiver to transceiver, transceiver to fiber optic router, and *then* on to the rest of the Internet.)  The specific frequencies used also means that the connection turns to poo any time it rains, snows, or gets foggy (because water happens to absorb that frequency really well.)  It's a good option if all you want is streaming service, but almost unusable for gaming.

3:  DSL.  This is what I have.  My connection costs $50 per month for 1mbps download, not counting all the taxes and fees they throw on because it uses the phone company landlines.  Another $20 for phone service (because I don't need a cell phone and I have the connection anyway) and all the fees means I'm paying $110 a month.  It's theoretically possible to upgrade to a 10mbps download speed, but the internet fee would be more like $70 and I'd have to buy a new DSL modem.  (Or lease one at about $15 per month.)

4:  Cell phone connection.  High latency, possibly high bandwidth, but also the plans in my area have ridiculously low data caps (less than 20gb per month, pricing goes up exponentially if you want more than that.)  Not a viable option for gaming, at all.

5:  Satellite internet.  Take whatever ping you start with, add the ping for the wireless option, then add an appropriate amount to account for bouncing the signal off a satellite in orbit.  Not even slightly viable for gaming unless you like "Play by email" strategy games.

And if I don't like any of those, my options for getting anything else amount to "Move to another state."

Edited by EmberStar
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming from a country with extremely bad ISP, P2P works for me, that's why I was able to play Warframe.

Played F2P Destiny 2 and uninstalled after 30 hours, couldn't stand the frustration of getting disconnected during raids.

Same goes with Path of Exile, played it back in 2015 and again in 2017 but eventually left, losing xp because of fluctuating latency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2019-10-15 at 5:06 AM, Jarriaga said:

Do you have a better source then? Regardless of how reliable they are, they still are the only point of reference we have.

 

That's a problem I would not experience with dedicated servers unless they are experiencing an actual problem instead of forcing a migration because they died or got bored. I've picked my poison. Not being at the mercy of another player outweighs anything else in my opinion.

While that's fair, it still doesn't mean much. Between steam/stand alone discrepancies and players who no longer play warframe, it's a very weak point of reference

And yes, it is. My point is that dedicated servers should be applied to the whole game, not just arbitrations. if we only had dedicated servers for arbitrations, you'd only be giving it to like .00001% of the player base since nobody likes arbitrations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...