Why is host migration a thang still?

[SneakyErvin]

On 2021-05-06 at 5:51 PM, RazerXPrime said:

1. only an issue for pubs. Not for me.

2. Still an issue with server side managing.

 

In what way are servers better for me? You said I would win. I never have the issue mentioned here in this topic because I don't play with pubs.

You're just telling me that you want me (someone who never has issues) to pay so you can play with pubs and fix an issue that hardly ever happens and certainly never happens to me. Host migration isn't the issue. The small chance of losing your progress or running into bugs is an issue. I've never lost progress or failed my mission due to host migrations.

I've played League of Legends for an extended amount of time. They have a huge server environment. They constantly have issues. Not just from their own systems not functioning or updates gone wrong, but also because their servers are targetted by hackers and angry players DDOSSing their systems. Every few matches you play you'd run into lag, disconnects, complete shutdowns of systems.

On what planet would we benefit for paying for something like that? People are acting like having a hosted server environment is some sort of magical cure that will make everything better. I mean do you actually know what you're talking about or are you just hoping this solution will fix your issues?

You'd win because nothing would change for you. You'd remove a risk factor even if you dont play in PuGs since even in pre-mades a host might fail.

The same issue plaguing LoL can happen here in WF now, so changing to dedicated servers would have no negative impact since we already rely on such things as the backbone of WF structure, even when in games hosted by players. And as I said, there would be no reason to remove the peer-to-peer (or well listen server) option that is already there, just as there would be no reason to remove how solo play functions. So again, everyone would win. You and your friends could still sit and host for eachother all the same. So it wouldnt impact you in any negative way. It would however be a huge benefit for many others. For me it would likely change little, since I mostly solo play due to the lack of multiplayer scaling. I may run some fissures in groups here and there for a bigger chance at loot, but since i rarely do shares I might aswell run solo since the chance someone has the same relic as me with the same radiation is very small.

I can also throw around a bunch of anecdotal dedicated server examples where I've had no trouble, in order to counter your anecdotal one that claims it is ridden with issues. It could in the end just mean that Riot have crap engineers that couldnt handle creating their own servers. Or that they are too cheap to provide enough servers for the actual population of the game. I mean, taking the vast difference in player count between WF and LoL is quite important and we dont know if Riot actually provides the amount of servers needed or if they take shortcuts by overflowing the servers that they do provide. There are more successful examples out there than the negative ones. I can count the issues I had in WoW over eight years on one hand, and that was me playing competative PvP on US servers from freakin Sweden since my brother and his wife lived in the US. I dont think there is a single dedicated server game I've had issues in outside of the initial release week except for FFXIV that just chose the cheapest US crap server hosts and called it EU servers.

In the end, the troubles you fear are already here and runs the same risk of happening now since we already have dedicated server interaction. More of it wouldnt raise the risk, it would however remove other risks that are currently part of the equation aswell.

 

On 2021-05-07 at 1:38 AM, RazerXPrime said:

And you're welcome to believe that larger companies don't care about return on investment.

I just checked financial statements for Leyou and DE for 2019 and it seems that after letting go of their food business Leyou lost a lot of their revenue and DE became a bigger part. As per the financial records Leyou had a revenue of 214M of which 70M was DE. Since DE and Leyou do not have open books on subsidiaries this last part comes from an external source that may or may not be trustworthy (growjo).

If it is correct then DE comprises about 30% of Leyou.

Leyou and DE arent a thing anymore. And your revenue numbers are off. Those numbers were DE based only, those 214 millions was the WF revenue, the 70 millions were the revenue increase compared to the prior year. Which was a repeat of the year before that and the year before that. Though those numbers were presented as percentage increases in the official reports.

Those official reports have been available on reddit each year thanks to diggers.

edit: iirc, in 2019 they had something like 114 (or was it 124?) millions in pure gain after all expenses had been payed, including the "fee" to Leyou at the time. I remember this because it came up in another discussion regarding dedicated servers and how "DE cannot afford it" with their earnings.

[Corvid]

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

You'd win because nothing would change for you.

Actually, for solo players switching to a server-based system would be an objective downgrade.

[Rakosta_Kai]

13 hours ago, RazerXPrime said:

And you're welcome to believe that larger companies don't care about return on investment.

Tell ya what...You quote for me where I've specifically made such a statement and post it in a reply here.

That's faster than chasing your shifting goalposts and perhaps if you go chasing down whatever it is you thought you read you might actually manage to read it again for the first time instead.

13 hours ago, RazerXPrime said:

If it is correct then DE comprises about 30% of Leyou.

You cherry-picked past facts you knew you couldn't argue in the hopes of landing on one you thought you actually could... Only to be wrong again anyway, huh?

Karma...

You don't have to like the fact that DE being under Tencent gives them access to capital and infrastructure that they haven't ever actually had and that they have been seeking since before they decided to self publish Warframe—It's still a fact though.

Whether or not DE will consider making use of it is the only question that's salient to this thread.

 

 

 

[(PSN)Jason_V_Jade]

Only times I really had any issues with HM is when I am ether in a group of enemies or in mid air jump and the host happens to be a kuva weapon hunter and doesn't find what they are looking for just suddenly leaves.

I blame the lazy and greedy kuva weapon farmers for not going solo and the lich system than I do HM.

[(PSN)KCGrimReaper15]

If you think host migration is annoying enough already try Running Haydon Sedna Defense & the host leave at end wave 5 or whenever allowed to leave 

& everyone except the host decides to stay 

Only for the game to completely break after a host migration with 0 enemies spawning therefore unless you quit your stuck for eternity with no way to save progress or rewards..

Host migration would not be as bad if things like this were fixed to were it wouldn't happen... 

They may not be able to fix host migration but they sure can fix the game breaking bugs that cause mission failures or where game won't spawn enemies like on Sedna after a Host Migration 

Otherwise if there not going to fix these issues caused by host migration 

 

Then they need to implement the system they have for Prime parts where your rewards are retrieved & given to you..

 

Except DE should go one step further with this system & give you all your lost loot & credits & Stuff as a result of the host bailing & causing a migration that makes you lose everything.

This would stop the host migration abuse & fix having to refarm a super rare reward over someone rage quitting...

 

There's are ways to minimize host migration from screwing with everyone's else's progress it's just a matter of DE implementation of it...

[Birdframe_Prime]

On 2021-05-06 at 5:48 PM, nslay said:

Now I've provided a theoretical design that solves the problem while preserving your precious P2P aspect.

That's nice, dear. Now...

With the literal 8 years of growth, of having all this feedback, of employing actual professionals to handle money, investment and balance costs...

What makes you think that your solution is not one they have discussed and already discarded?

Do you think that this hasn't already come up and been analysed for the cost/benefit of it?

Because if you think they haven't, that staying this way isn't a very simple case of 'it's worth more not to change it', then I've got a bridge to sell you.

If I'm being absolutely, brutally callous to the situation, it's even more simple; despite all of the complaints, that's not impeded the continued business of making Warframe. DE would have done something if Warframe were actually showing any signs of decay directly linked, or even subsequently linked, to this issue. And if you think that there's a lot of complaints now, you've missed a few years in the history of this game (which I'm not judging you on, your account says you joined in 2018, so yeah, you've missed quite a bit).

[nslay]

15 minutes ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Do you think that this hasn't already come up and been analysed for the cost/benefit of it?

I don't know, what do you think? Oh right... you don't actually know this either.

But hey! You can try to discredit the problem by asking hypothetical questions that nobody here could possibly know! Sprinkle some weasel words like "professional" to try to discredit the problem as being completely unsolvable by anybody else. We should just give up and never complain or offer up ideas about Warframe's established bad multiplayer systems again. There's just no hope! We know that employed professionals must have spent the last 8 years trying to solve the problem... and we know that they must have discussed our ideas too! Nobody here could possibly have novel ideas or also happen to be a professional because the Warframe community must be comprised of only ignorant daft gamers.

I'm being brutally callous about your post, I do have a bridge to sell you... if a problem exists, be an ostrich and bury your head in the sand and assume everyone else can evaluate and solve the problem for you. If they don't solve the problem, assume they can't and defend the problem as completely not a problem (even if it objectively is). Never provide any feedback because employed professionals already thought of any critiques you have and any kind of solution you might have... well, they must have already discussed it... so, no point.

 

 

[Birdframe_Prime]

1 hour ago, nslay said:

I don't know, what do you think? Oh right... you don't actually know this either.

Like I said, you missed a lot.

1 hour ago, nslay said:

We should just give up and never complain or offer up ideas about Warframe's established bad multiplayer systems again.

Maybe not, considering you're beating a dead horse.

Like I said, this question has been asked for literally years.

The complaining hasn't done a damn thing.

Not because it's not possible, but because not doing it is, from the logical conclusion, more profitable than doing it.

And so, yes, there's absolutely no point.

That's exactly what I've been saying.

[nslay]

12 minutes ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Not because it's not possible, but because not doing it is, from the logical conclusion, more profitable than doing it.

And so, yes, there's absolutely no point.

That's exactly what I've been saying.

My whole post is the figurative "bridge" (the bridge scam) that characterizes your response... Your points are useless.

12 minutes ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Like I said, you missed a lot.

Even if I missed a lot, that does NOT imply we know what DE has or has not discussed internally with regard to problems, solutions or ideas.

Concern questions like these:

• "What makes you think that your solution is not one they have discussed and already discarded?"
• "Do you think that this hasn't already come up and been analysed for the cost/benefit of it?"

... do NOT magically answer in your favor. Because nobody knows what's been internally considered, discussed or what's possible at any given moment in time with changing technology (including you).

Posing fake rhetorical questions like this to try to discredit a solution is a fallacy (which by the way you never actually address!). Posting with this discouraging defeatist response is no way to draw DE's attention to problems (no matter how redundant) or possible solutions. And it contrasts with the Warframe Forum practice of providing Feedback to DE (which is read and sometimes implemented by DE... a direct counter-example to your way of thinking!). Essentially asserting that "actual professional" implies all-knowing and infallible is also a fallacy... because DE makes mistakes and bad design choices all the time (and they correct them through Feedback!). Claiming anything about financials (which none of us is privvy, including you) is also a fallacy... they even implement controversial game features all the time!

[Birdframe_Prime]

9 minutes ago, nslay said:

Your points are useless.

And your entire argument is useless.

Your presence in this thread does nothing. I'm pointing out the fallacy in your presence, let alone the idiocy in your constant trying to argue the toss with me.

My rhetorical questions being ones that I can't answer doesn't magically make them bad questions, nor does it make the point they make incorrect.

But my statements about the years and years and years of this being asked?

Show how ridiculous the re-asking of the question is.

My rhetorical questions are to get you to wake up and just see yourself to the door, because you're shouting at a wall, not providing feedback into a slot.

Go find more solvable problems, like why K-Drive kills don't count towards Nightwave totals.

[nslay]

14 minutes ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

Go find more solvable problems, like why K-Drive kills don't count towards Nightwave totals.

No, I will voice my feedback about problems in Warframe with hopes that DE will make the game better. The current multiplayer system is bad for players. There are solutions that already exist in the game that could make the system less punishing. And I believe there are other possible P2P designs that would work and fail more gracefully (even if the current one is an engineering work of art!).

16 minutes ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

And your entire argument is useless.

Which argument? The one about how your post is riddled with fallacy and defeatist points of view? Or the P2P solution? Or some solutions that already exist in the game for Void fissures or bounties?

10 minutes ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

My rhetorical questions being ones that I can't answer doesn't magically make them bad questions, nor does it make the point they make incorrect.

Of course they are bad questions in this context! They're entirely useless! You do NOT magically support your arguments with veiled fake rhetorical questions that even you can't answer.

8 minutes ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

But my statements about the years and years and years of this being asked?

And you know what? They have made changes to old systems before.... even recently!

12 minutes ago, Birdframe_Prime said:

My rhetorical questions are to get you to wake up and just see yourself to the door, because you're shouting at a wall, not providing feedback into a slot.

What a deceptive way to use rhetorical questions. They're rhetorical because the answer is known and obvious... you made fake rhetorical questions that nobody (even you) here can answer (except for DE).

[SneakyErvin]

22 hours ago, Corvid said:

Actually, for solo players switching to a server-based system would be an objective downgrade.

Which is why I said solo-play should stay as is along with keeping peer-to-peer. Pointless to remove them since it would just increase costs over keeping them.

[Hatzeputt]

Host system.

First Player who registers the mission is determined host, no matter how slow his connection is. Hosting means, all game related info goes through the host first and that means drops as well, so when the host drops you loose your loot. Unless DE redoes their host system this will remain, and no in a game like this, server based hosting is a stupid idea.

Well DE could do server hosting but then please add a fee to all those who want it. 

I got 1600 hours under my belt, have I been ripped of by host migration? Only in the beginning since I mostly run solo and when I do group play we determine beforehand who is going to host based on hardware and environment. So don´t be a scrub and think first for a change. 

If you want server based hosting then better be prepared for payed DLCs instead of free upgrades and updates to the game. 

[Birdframe_Prime]

16 hours ago, nslay said:

The current multiplayer system is bad for players.

No multiplayer system is good for players. Every one comes with drawbacks and benefits.

16 hours ago, nslay said:

And you know what? They have made changes to old systems before.... even recently!

And this isn't a 'system', it's the base net-code of the game. That kind of depth of change in the game is second only to changing the engine itself from the Evolution engine to something like Unreal.

The logic is simple.

To change this, they need money, time and working on nothing else for anywhere between six months and a year. On the other side of that time and money, nothing new has been achieved, it's only kicked the can to somewhere else. They've brought nothing new to the table, and would have to start working on those new things after the change over. All of that will, as we've literally seen over the game's time line, reduce players. That lack of anything causes the game to bleed. And the fact that even after all that the updates would only start again after the new net-code has been implemented and fixed (because Bug-frame is Bug-frame) means that even the announced update means disappointing players again.

You don't like Peer 2 Peer? Lots of people don't? Well I bet you're also the kind of person that hates having to wait two hours on update day to even log in due to server limits. I bet you're also the type of person who would hate it if your 'local' server was just far enough away to ensure you never got under 200 ping.

Because that's the kind of issues that dedicated servers have. They aren't better, they aren't worse, they're just a different set of problems and you're going to upset as many people as you please.

The money, time and effort that DE could spend changing this would be genuinely better spent doing literally anything else.

And the solutions that you're talking about, with Bounties and Void Fissues are literally improvements to the base Host Migration backup system, you dense little creature, that DE are implementing over time to try and fix your problems.

That's why P2P and Host Migration is a thing that will never go away, because even the simplest of laymen can understand the balance of 'Do option A, earn less money, lose players, have as many players complain about the new problems as complained about the old problems' vs 'Do the other thing, earn steady money, average the same players, slowly fix the old problems so less players are complaining and draw in more players because the problems get fixed.'

This is why this:

16 hours ago, nslay said:

No, I will voice my feedback about problems in Warframe with hopes that DE will make the game better.

Is useless.

DE are making the game better. You just want to make the game different. Because you might not get the same problems that will, as proven in other games, happen to other people.

And if DE ever do get the cash injection from their investors with the exact intent of changing this over, I really do hope that I see you back complaining that you were playing some particular game and a Hotfix dropped, kicking you out with only three minute's warning, counting as you 'abandoning' the mission and losing your progress anyway. Or that you can't maintain a stable connection because your part of the world has sub-optimal internet.

[Krankbert]

vor 15 Stunden schrieb Hatzeputt:

no in a game like this, server based hosting is a stupid idea.

Thanks for your well-reasoned opinion. That and the fact that you don’t have problems has certainly convinced me. Go home everyone, Hatzeputt thinks it’s stupid and he doesn’t have the problems you have, that settles the matter.

[_R_o_g_u_e_]

On 2021-05-01 at 1:40 AM, legitbehind said:

Well host migration is intrinsic unless the game gets dedicated servers for mission hosting.

I’ve played a lot of games without dedicated servers and warframe is the only game I’ve played where you can lose all of your mission rewards if someone else quits. It’s not intrinsic at all.

[Birdframe_Prime]

15 hours ago, _R_o_g_u_e_ said:

I’ve played a lot of games without dedicated servers

Please give actual examples? Because I want to know about these co-operative multiplayer games that do not use dedicated servers and do not also use peer-to-peer hosting from a single location in place of the dedicated servers.

Not only could it help with discussion going forward, but I can do some research into them and find out why they work, what systems they use to back up your progress and so on.

For example, a particular method that DE has actually nyxed is letting the client's machine back up the data in case of a disconnect, which other games might still let you do. Why have they gotten rid of it? Because players can exploit that to generate guaranteed drops of RNG items with relatively simple code injection tools. Disconnect, run the script and reconnect to the servers within a short enough window and the game could simply count your ill-gotten gains as legitimate, so that entire option was removed quite early on in the game's history. But those other games may not have that kind of concern, so maybe those games don't have the kind of trading for premium currency that Warframe has, and so their peer-to-peer might allow you to have a local backup that gets verified when you reconnect.

But almost all the other large, co-op based systems use dedicated servers because they have enough investment at the start of the development to actually build the game based on that net-code.

[Hypernaut1]

I'm laughing at forum warriors really thinking they have answers for DE. 

Wouldn't it be amazing? "Steve! Look! Read this post! The answer to all our hosting problems! All encompassed in one well thought out rant! What do we pay all of these technical experts for?! Make sure you like that post so we can refer to it later,"

[George_PPS]

Technically one host design is the cheapest design without a server and to minimize network traffic so game runs better and smoother. This has happened to few my missions but it’s not often. 

[Krankbert]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb Birdframe_Prime:

For example, a particular method that DE has actually nyxed is letting the client's machine back up the data in case of a disconnect, which other games might still let you do. Why have they gotten rid of it? Because players can exploit that to generate guaranteed drops of RNG items with relatively simple code injection tools.

I’m sorry, are you arguing that drop data shouldn’t live on a players machine and therefore clients can’t have all the data the host has in a game with P2P hosting? What’s preventing the host from doing that exact thing right now? This has to be a solved problem, or else the current P2P hosting wouldn’t work.

[Birdframe_Prime]

1 hour ago, Krankbert said:

I’m sorry, are you arguing that drop data shouldn’t live on a players machine and therefore clients can’t have all the data the host has in a game with P2P hosting? What’s preventing the host from doing that exact thing right now? This has to be a solved problem, or else the current P2P hosting wouldn’t work.

What's preventing the Host from doing it right now is that the Host is the one connected to DE's servers, their data is verifiable. Unlike all the Clients, who are connected to the Host, there is a literal tracking of the Host's progress and drops.

I'm not the one arguing that drop data shouldn't live on the Client's machines, DE explicitly came out and said that they've prevented this because it was being abused by code injection.

The reason you lose things with the current P2P system is that what Host Migration is literally doing is trying to establish a new Host, reconnecting the session to the servers with either you or one of the other clients Hosting and providing verifiable progress data. When Host Migration fails, specifically because there is no suitable Host available and connection to the main servers cannot be re-established, you cannot continue with the session and have to reset. Your data is not verifiable, it could be, and specifically it was, manipulated when this function was previously allowed.

Now, like I said, in other games this could be something that their devs still allow, because maybe those games don't allow trading of these kinds of drops for the premium currency.

That's why Host Migration is an ongoing and powerful tool, when it works. Because it is the main Warframe Servers trying to reconnect to a Host and put you back in connection with that Host too (or make you the Host and connect the others to you) while it can still ensure that you aren't doing something to game the system. That takes some doing.

[Krankbert]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb Birdframe_Prime:

What's preventing the Host from doing it right now is that the Host is the one connected to DE's servers, their data is verifiable. Unlike all the Clients, who are connected to the Host, there is a literal tracking of the Host's progress and drops.

I'm not the one arguing that drop data shouldn't live on the Client's machines, DE explicitly came out and said that they've prevented this because it was being abused by code injection.

The reason you lose things with the current P2P system is that what Host Migration is literally doing is trying to establish a new Host, reconnecting the session to the servers with either you or one of the other clients Hosting and providing verifiable progress data.

At least you're saying that they said that, and I'm telling you that it doesn't make a lick of sense. The reason the host can't manipulate the data is because the server doesn't trust it. If it doesn't trust the game state on the host, why would it trust the game state on the former clients. Why would it need to. The server knows what the drops were and what accounts were in the game.

[Birdframe_Prime]

1 hour ago, Krankbert said:

The reason the host can't manipulate the data is because the server doesn't trust it.

They can't manipulate it because it's being actively monitored. The second a Client disconnects from the Host, or the Host disconnects and leaves the Clients free-hanging, that active monitoring is lost, that's where code-injection happens.

The server does not know where the drops were without that active connection. It can only record up until the disconnect happens. That's where Host Migration kicks in to attempt to restore that last monitored state. If it cannot restore that last monitored state onto a new Host, it fails and the data is no longer trusted.

[Krankbert]

vor 20 Minuten schrieb Birdframe_Prime:

They can't manipulate it because it's being actively monitored. The second a Client disconnects from the Host, or the Host disconnects and leaves the Clients free-hanging, that active monitoring is lost, that's where code-injection happens.

You think the server actively monitors the clients memory? You're so far out of your depth here, it's ridiculous. There is no active monitoring. There can't be. It's impossible. The server can only verify that the game state the client sends him is what he expects, and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that the server couldn't also check the state one of the other clients sends him. The server knows what game you just split from and what that game's state is supposed to be. That's not even a similar check, it's the exact same check.

vor 20 Minuten schrieb Birdframe_Prime:

The server does not know where the drops were without that active connection. It can only record up until the disconnect happens. 

Exactly. So how could the client possibly cheat when the server knows what the drops are supposed to be. I really don't get why you think the developer of the server software would go "oh, the host can't be trusted, I can control that, but whatever this former client says goes - if he shows more drops, then I'll just discard the server-side state".

[Birdframe_Prime]

6 hours ago, Krankbert said:

You think the server actively monitors the clients memory?

No, I think the server actively maintains a connection to the Host and data is sent back periodically, the system was actually expanded when the Plains went in because of the longer-term variable mission types there.

DE explained how it works clearly on one of the DevStreams after the Plains was found to suffer worse from disconnection issues than regular play.

And yes the Client could cheat before, because, and let me make this absolutely clear: Before they shut down that option, the Server did trust the Client. That's why code injection could change the drops and the Server would register them as correct when the Client reconnected to the server.

Now it's no longer possible, because the server tries to preserve your connections, your session, and form a new group, and if it can't do that you lose connection. You lose connection, you lose your progress. You lose your progress because this prevents the situations that happened before the change.

Do you have a problem with the concept of 'before' and 'after'? As in 'Situation was a problem before' and 'Situation does not exist after'?

So before the option was taken away, the problem was that the data could be changed and the server would trust it. Now, because it's become very clear through actual cases of it happening in the past, DE completely cut away that trust, because the data becomes unverifiable after the Client disconnects from the Host.

That is why that option was taken away. That is why it does not exist. That's why you lose things if Host Migration fails. It's safer for DE to let you lose everything than for you to potentially come back with forty rare drops from a five minute mission that you can turn into Platinum.

Other games, as I've said, may have preserved it because it doesn't affect other players in the way that it can in Warframe, effectively generating items that can be traded for the premium currency, but there's a solid reason why DE removed it in Warframe.