Option to tag self as Host and/or client

[EdsBusy17]

Recently encountered a match where the host had consistently over 3 second ping, and as high as 10 seconds. I don't know why the readout on the bottom was off by a factor of 2 or more but there really needs to be a toggle for players with lower-end connections to have the choice to opt-out of hosting matches. As someone who's been on that end and never wanted to host matches, I WISH this option existed years ago. I "only" had it set to 200 ping limit , but this match-up slipped through the cracks and makes it obvious that we can't completely rely on the in-game connection detection. Download speeds will always outpace upload, and not everyone is going to have stable connections. This would leave those who know the option to back out of hosting unless it absolutely necessitated being the host (ex: very few players online), and giving the player the option to become a host then or dip out and try again to find one like a "continue search" prompt.

 

To clarify and TL;DR:
New option under System -> Network -> Peer-to-Peer option: Host only¹ - Client only* - Host preferred - Client preferred - Both

*prompt to host after 5-10s of no match

¹built-in report system for hosts with near unplayable connections (ex shoot enemy, hitreg takes 2-3 seconds [2000-3000 ms] ping)
EDIT: 2 more options

Edited June 27 by EdsBusy17
2 more options

[Nekomian]

This topic comes up every few weeks, but it always has the same shortcomings; how specifically are you defining a "lower-end" or "bad" connection? Intermittent connectivity can be sporadic and random, between clients or hosts. It can also vary wildly depending on who the host and client are, where they're located geographically, and many additional factors.

Even with a toggle for this, your described situation can still occur - saying "oh, I'm a reliable host!" means nothing when intermittent connectivity issues can occur regardless of how good or stable the player thinks their connection is. The same applies for those who choose client only, as they could be perfectly viable hosts for many people to connect to (or may spend an excessive amount of time waiting in 90% of the star chart that are practically abandoned missions, when it should just start their mission and make them host). A toggle only serves to segregate matchmaking into further divided pools, rather than the system automatically joining the best available one or creating a session if none exists; it works in a "perfect scenario" where everyone knows exactly how their internet will behave, but that's not a realistic one whatsoever.

A hybrid approach would work better - that is, if the latency from host to peers (multiple, not just one) is excessive, it either switches host during the mission (if possible, certain UDP tunneling restrictions might cause issues here) or moves the mission to a server relay temporarily (these are hosted by whatever company DE uses, and are already used in strict NAT situations to my knowledge), either until it can resolve the issue or the mission is completed, whichever works best honestly.

The whole migration process itself needs to be streamlined too IMO, it just pauses gameplay for like 10s+ and removes buffs, and sometimes mission progress, and just feels bad overall. It's easier said than done I'm sure, but it feeling more seamless would help with this a lot.

[EdsBusy17]

1 hour ago, Nekomian said:

how specifically are you defining a "lower-end" or "bad" connection?

I thought my very first line of an example of a catastrophically bad connection would hint at what I was referring to, (It persisted consistently throughout the match until its end)

My situation was using DSL at the time, and it wasn't good DSL. 150 KB/s down and somewhere between 25-50 KB/s up if nothing else was using the connection. I'd suggest a connection tester within the launcher or game (or a simulated match made so there'd be "equal" conditions) and have it average out 3-5 tests to tag what your connection is to match ping limits. Not sure how high spikes should be graded within that.

1 hour ago, Nekomian said:

if the latency from host to peers (multiple, not just one) is excessive,

I'd argue this is a case where it should kick in to begin with when assembling a randomized squad. Better of two connections should win out. Obviously this is going to be an issue when people specifically invite others (designated squad leader), so it's not going to be applicable there.

1 hour ago, Nekomian said:

A toggle only serves to segregate matchmaking into further divided pools, rather than the system automatically joining the best available one or creating a session if none exists

That's why I made sure to include this caveat:

2 hours ago, EdsBusy17 said:

unless it absolutely necessitated being the host (ex: very few players online), and giving the player the option to become a host then or dip out and try again to find one like a "continue search" prompt.

Only option I'd change is removing "Host only", but that's about it. Or changing it to Host preferred - Client preferred to eliminate option confusion and keep the search widened. Maybe just adding those among the "only"s and the "only" choices pop up prompts during search with "would you like to connect to an available match/host a match?" after 5 seconds.

[laxximus]

As someone with a rather less than ideal internet connection for hosting games I fully support the suggestion

When I want to play in public, it's a pain to sit there cancelling the mission sometimes several times in a row to avoid the game putting me as a host. In places like the Zariman or open worlds it's even worse as there's no way to know if I'm host until after loading in, causing either a host migration or a potentially terrible experience.

An option to never be put as a host would just make things better for everyone.

[Nekomian]

2 hours ago, EdsBusy17 said:

I'd suggest a connection tester within the launcher or game (or a simulated match made so there'd be "equal" conditions) and have it average out 3-5 tests to tag what your connection is to match ping limits. Not sure how high spikes should be graded within that.

A connection test to the launcher would only reflect connectivity to DE's servers, not other peers; the game already pings multiple times during matchmaking to other peers, to try and find the most consistent and closest RTT available. It's not indicative of connection to other peers too, only the individuals currently hosting.

Like I said, the issue would be solvable with a toggle in perfect scenarios, but realistically it's not like that. Not all users who have consistent, stable net are eligible hosts (either due to NAT typing or weird network routing rules) and toggles just complicate the matchmaking process unnecessarily, allowing users to specify conditions regardless of their network or knowledge of their infrastructure. As an example, you could have 10 users all with CG-NAT restrictions or weird routing rules that only allow users X, Y, and Z to connect to them (who are set to host only), that are all toggled to host only; meanwhile, 10 other people without any restrictions are set to client only because they had a drop-out once or turn it on to see what it does, even though they're perfectly viable to host.

Player choice for network infrastructure level problems does not fully solve this issue, and creates new ones that didn't exist before. The existing system we have is not perfect, but it at least finds the best available session. There's always going to be that one host that has like 1000ms latency and horrible spikes (regardless of what they'd have toggled) because network infrastructure is dynamic and sporadic; having a system that recognizes an issue during a session and migrates when appropriate (either to another eligible client or a server relay if not all players can join the new host) is more robust than the guesswork applied with player choice. Combined with making migrations less intrusive and annoying, there would be barely any gameplay impact at all either while the game happily transfers host status.

[Fred_Avant_2019]

Not gonna make friends with this one, but damn do I miss pre-crossplay era, at times. Yes I know you can disable it, but because so few actually do, you're less likely to be matched with people at all. Only time I do is when something forces me to go do some duviri business like collecting resources for Nightwave challenges.

As for the proposed solutions, I think it would help somewhat. At least make it possible for fiber players to be more likely to host than people on copper cables, ain't much but could make some difference. Same thing with global performances, maybe don't expect someone who can just barely run the game to be hosting it.