Lag And Client Side Hosting

[Gereinath-Hunter]

I sat down today in hopes of running some of my favorite missions to collect mods, credits, and get some of the new weapons started in the foundry. What I got instead was a horrible, laggy, unplayable time. Now you may be thinking to yourself, "Bea, how can this be? Warframe isn't horrible or unplayable! In fact, it's great!" Well that's just it. Warframe isn't the problem; it's a great game to sit down and feel good with. The problem is that the client has to host games. "But Bea, I can play just fine! I don't even know what you're talking about!" Yes, some people can be lucky like that, get in a game with no lag, but that usually means that the host is located geographically closer to you and has a decent computer. You see less significant lag problems if you're somewhere, say, in the middle of the US and playing on US East or US West regions; you will see almost no difference between the two. US West playing on US East, though, the lag is obnoxious as targets you shoot wont die for another 1-2 seconds.

 

The lag I've been frequently encountering isn't anything like that. It's due in large part to those users who have absolute trash computers and trash connections, or who may be playing on other countries' servers because theirs are underpopulated at that particular moment. My first video here is a solid example of what I'm talking about: http://youtu.be/m6P8Wu4AP-U

*I actually finished cutting this video, getting to this point in my post, and beginning to upload it before I even got out of the mission.

 

This second video is actually from the 6.* patches just before the 7.* release, but I've had a few similar ones since as well: http://youtu.be/HR5_FgfsZmQ

 

Now, not every single group I get into is like this, maybe 3/5 have been, the others are just the every-day type of lag, where rarely I might find myself in one that doesn't lag at all. This, though? This is unplayable. The challenge and experience of the game is outright neutered. If I had gotten into the closed beta test and the client hosts were this awful, I probably would have bowed out until Warframe corrected itself. The point here, though, is that this sort of thing is enough to turn people away from the game. Very easily, in fact. Another game that used this client-side hosting early on was the FPSMMO beta Huxley, its instanced areas were entirely client based and when you went into another's party, it was a sh***y gamble as to whether or not you'd even be able to fire your weapon or just have to sit in the corner while the client host cleared the map for you so you could get your reward at the end. It was one of the biggest flaws of that beta that caused no end to frustration in the competitive PvP aspect of it as well.

 

The common reply I get when I complain about lag is: "Oh yeah!? Well why don't you just leave then?!" To this I always have to take a minute or two to explain that I would love to leave their group but that I am forced into their group to run that particular mission and when I click on it again in online mode, it'll either just throw me back into that group or might put me in a different group if there are any other groups there. "Yeah!? Well go play private mode then if it's that big of a problem!" If I wanted to play a game by myself, I'd go play Skyrim. Warframe shares a lot of similarities with another game, Phantasy Star: Online. It was a pretty good game for its time, loved it myself, but playing alone was the most abysmal part about it. I, as I assume many others, play Warframe to do so cooperatively, to be modestly social; I may as well just stand in front of a mirror, strike ninja poses, and make "Whoosh" noises if I'm going to play by myself. "Well join a clan! Play with not laggy friends!" Not everyone in your clan or on your friends list is lag-free, nor are they available at all hours and ready to host a specific level for you or want to join your map. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't have any interest in making a f***ing production out of logging in and just jumping into a mission by messaging a friend or three, waiting for all of them to get ready, log in, or finish their mission just to do what you want to do.

 

"Well, Bea, what do you propose the solution for this is?" Well I can think of several. Why not put a "Start As Host" option in the online/private/offline box up there? So that I can make myself host, knowing that I have a strong machine and connection that can support three other players if need be? How about a ping priority of some kind so that people with similar pings within the region are grouped together? Or a personal setting to limit what ping level you're okay connecting to? How about a little region-lock action that prevents me from going over to the most popular missions on the Oceanic region and farting around as a host there? Or better yet start pushing for making that dedicated server idea a reality. I know it was mentioned as a possibility before, but can we get an update? An ETA? A reason why it isn't implemented yet? Is it cost? Incompatibility? What?

 

TL;DR: Client hosting is becoming an increasingly unpredictable mess with the progression into open beta and Steam release, to the point I would rather make long-winded posts on the forums than try to wade through the horrible hosts.

 

-Bea

[Darzk]

+1 for wall of text.

 

I'm on the east coast, using a 50 mb/sec connection, and still seeing horribly laggy games 1/4 of the time. Amusingly, if you run away from teammates, you can clear entire rooms before the mobs in them move, as long as you know how much damage you need to do to kill a mob.

 

I generally just quit, load the mission again or try a different system until the terrible host moves on. Its a bigger problem with alert missions (which 1/2 the time I cant connect to anyway).

 

Something like a mandatory host minimimum spec check or automatic host rotation would be a nice stopgap. Adding a start as host button would be a problem as the people who are terrible hosts often are terrible client connections too, so they'd be starting as host MORE often when you join a game.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Darzk

[VieuxPappy]

I adore this game, yet I find what you just bring up too true. Unless you play regularly with friends that live close to you (and same as you, I have a really good computer and a good connection - never had any complaint from joiners and I tend to host most of my games), well you're going to have some bad time with all those kids, living across Canada/USA, hosting games from a 2001 PC on a DSL connection. When I open a chest/locker and I have to wait 5 seconds just for the money to fall down on the floor in order to be able to pick it up, I tend to simply press Esc and leave lol.

We can't blaim the game for those people hosting with S#&$ty computers/connections but it could definitly help increase the love new players develop for this game if it's not dependant of client hosting.

[SoulEchelon]

I fully agree with everyone above. Nothing is as jarring as coming from a party with a strong connection only to hop into another one with a host that shouldn't even be looking at the region he/she chose to play in.

 

Something definitely needs to be done. Latency can kill -any- game.

[Zoey_Corredan]

@_@ Ton of text..

 

An option for like who hosts, or limiting region acces, etc is a nice idea yea, but I can bet it will still cause tons of issues..

Playing in the same region isn't a 100% chance as you say to be without issues either.. the net connection and pc itself depend on it also.. it's like I got a crappy-ish net connection yet my pc it pretty good, so barely to no problems.. yet there are others who I think have wooden pc's and still dare to play if they know there is a host system and their game sucks..

Which comes down to.. if your pc/net sucks and you know you'll cause issues for others.. Don't darn host, go solo or try to join others instead.

 

But ofcourse the best thing still would be to have the game server itself be the host, and players would only be getting delay for themselves.. *gasp* but I forgot.. *sarcastically* they probably can't handle that.. *facepalm*. Or it was just a complete stupid idea and they really need to change that..

Edited April 13, 2013 by Akosah

[Gereinath-Hunter]

@_@ Ton of text..

 

An option for like who hosts, or limiting region acces, etc is a nice idea yea, but I can bet it will still cause tons of issues..

 

The best thing still would be to have the game server itself be the host, and players only getting delay for themselves.. *gasp* but I forgot.. *sarcastically* they can't handle that.. *facepalm*

Well, an option for 'who hosts' would be problematic in that it would constantly cause the original host to get shafted if they aren't up to par if they play online, and a whole lot more "Host migration in progress..." messages stalling up your missions. The biggest issue I can see with region locking would be people who have friends in other countries. Maybe region lock with the ability to join groups in other regions upon invite?

 

-Bea

[toastmasta]

We simply need to have some sort of ping system.  Region access is probably harder to do from a developers stand point.  I'm guessing you wouldn't see alot of games either the later it becomes in your time zone (2am for example)

 

But simple information about the game you are joining is necesarry.  Because I would guess alot of these games that you connect to are 200+ pings.  The problem is Warframe doesn't handle high pings well, for whatever reason.  I can play Borderlands 2 (which has local hosting and alot larger environments) with high pings and not see the kind of freezes/lag I encounter in Warframe.

[Gereinath-Hunter]

Borderlands has a lot of similarities here as well, but generally you play that with friends you know. I don't think I've ever played borderlands with strangers, simply because of how the game works. Not everyone gets all of the loot in borderlands. Imagine here if mods were first-come-first-serve? Nobody would want to play with anyone they don't know, or more experienced players would be lurking around the newer areas to hijack mods; there would be a lot more pissed off players. Think, then, if Borderlands had the same loot rules as Warframe, had a level map that showed how many open teams were in an area, don't you think there'd be a lot more drop-in game joining? It would swiftly succumb to the same problem Warframe has with client hosting.

 

-Bea

[Nolla]

I completely agree with Bea. This game is good. But the constant lag problem is proving too much for me I have 100mb down/ 5mb up connection and have no problems with hosting game - but other people are not so lucky and its really getting annoying. Its worse than when I started playing online games on the net back in 1992 playing with 600ms ping rates.

 

Ideas

1) What they should do is to do a ping trace on each players line while playing this will get an over all ping/jitter for that persons line. Then if a better connection comes online then it migrates over to that connection. If a users gets a constantly bad connection they they are not allowed to host multiplayer games only solo ( i know that defeats the object of the game but if your trying to host a game on a crappy connection what can you expext).

2) They must know the region your in (from asking the user and also doing a general ip trace) and so would present you with a regional online map. That way you could have a international, regonal and local map.

 

-Nolla

[Gereinath-Hunter]

I can't say I'd ever expect them to make it so a player couldn't host, as that would begin segregation of the player base, which is a big no. You can not "stop" users, but you can give other users a way around them, which is why I suggested the ping limiter/Start as host options.

 

I actually ran into another instance of this whole mess during an alert mission that floored me enough to throw out another video:

http://youtu.be/N01sAbhvE78

^ This is not an instanced occurance, had similar experiences trying to do other alert missions. One of them actually crashed to the solar system screen when it tried to host migrate.

 

-Bea

[Aggh]

I can't say I'd ever expect them to make it so a player couldn't host, as that would begin segregation of the player base, which is a big no. You can not "stop" users, but you can give other users a way around them, which is why I suggested the ping limiter/Start as host options.

 

I actually ran into another instance of this whole mess during an alert mission that floored me enough to throw out another video:

http://youtu.be/N01sAbhvE78

^ This is not an instanced occurance, had similar experiences trying to do other alert missions. One of them actually crashed to the solar system screen when it tried to host migrate.

 

-Bea

Just don't allow people with inadequate connections to host "online" games.  They can host private games if they want to host, but they shouldn't be able to ruin game quality for players just clicking on a mission.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Aggh

[LunarWind]

Allowing us to join a mission by hosting without attempting to join existing parties.

That would be awesome.

 

I too have an amazing connection and PC, and I feel great when I get to host. I know that anyone who joins will enjoy the best Warframe experience they can get, and I try to host whenever I can.

 

We need more of this.

[Nolla]

The one that annoyed me the other day was a group of 4 has completed a defense mission and I had managed to get a rare pistol hellfire mod. The game exited out ok, but then suddenly said couldnt save host information or something like that and I lost it and the number of levels that i had gained on that mission. Kinda sucks at that point.

 

-Nolla.

 

PS: What about a user defined poll at the end that says would you use the host connection again. If you have a bad experience then click no (although, now thinking about this - it could leave to abuse, not because of the connection but because the player was bad). But another idea anyway.

[hypnopotamus]

Bea, I came to the forums to post about this exact issue.  My machine is able to host most times (first time I've had a serious performance problem) however in a mission that I just did (I think the one in the first video linked in the OP)  there were hundreds of grineer as we defended a point in mobile defense.  The count may sound like an exaggeration but remember that as the host my machine is running ai for more enemies than can be seen and the enemies were spawning in other rooms and walking to us in addition to the ones in the room with us.  My framerate lowered noticeably but we passed.  defending the crypod after the 2 mobile defenses brought many more enemies around (or at least more quickly) and I dropped to nearly unplayable framerates but my friend who was in game said he didn't notice any problems.  Of note, before this patch, I could easily tell when I was hosting by the color on my plasma sword showing or not showing so I know I've hosted without problems many times before.

I've been annoyed at bad hosts from time to time, sounds very much like Im not alone.  If there were a way for my laptop to host games for me while my desktop plays (and for other people in a similar situation to do the same) overall player experience MAY be improved (in my case im skeptical since my laptop is not a computation giant, rather a few year old machine made for multimedia use).  That was my first thought, followed by load sharing between all players.  1 player hosting the connections and the map and the other 3 running randomization for lockers, splitting the ai and so forth would largely hide or prevent what's shown in your videos.  This solution wouldn't really be the best, since it would be very complicated to implement and wouldn't fully remove the issue...possibly even causing more.

even better, I think, would be a combination of what many others have suggested/asked for in this thread and my first thought.  Given the proper reward system (best I can think of is either platinum or something only attainable through hosting or spending platinum [not credit attainable]) players could still host and we could still have dedicated host machine advantages (or very nearly), without the costs associated for Digital Extremes of acquiring, running and upkeeping a machine able to hosting all the game sessions running at a given time.  By this I mean allowing me to allow my desktop to be open to host sessions for other players while Im not using it (say, during the day when Im out doing things other than killing grineer) with the current system being the fallback if there are no hosts available or the host machine is lost or bails.  I'd totally host games for small amounts of platinum since its using my machine while its otherwise sitting idle, presumably.  Of course I don't know the average load estimates for a central host for all game sessions so it may not even be close as expensive a thing as Im assuming.

In any situation, any change being implemented is an issue of developer time, of course.  To make any change requires a lot of effort.  Its a prevalent and invasive issue, sure, but a feasible solution needs to be affordable for the company, both in time spent and the end result.  Personally I'd rather see better game sessions right now, but thats being said directly after a patch adding new map tiles and a few more weapons for people to chase.  right before the patch I was beginning to feel the levels repetitive and saying which I would want more at that time would've been hard.

[Warlyik]

The problem is that the game breaks on so many different levels with a bad host that doing nothing to alleviate this problem is a huge detriment to the game's success.  Mods stop working, action buttons stop working (I've had Revive and Melee both stop working in the same instance, several times with bad hosts), AI breaks down/mobs can't attack, etc.

 

This same problem occurred in ME3's Multiplayer which is extremely similar to this game.  Bad host = Bad experience.  

 

Start as Host is an option.

 

I think their Network Diagnostic Utility needs to be expanded to fill the role of "certifying" hosts.  This would require a little more data, but not much more.  Essentially, Certified Hosts would be given preference in-game to host missions - further in-game diagnostics would detect significantly degraded performance and then start a host migration process, where any Certified Hosts would be given immediate priority over hosting the mission.  In the case of not having any certified hosts, a basic performance test would be done and then a new host chosen from the best of those options.  The host detection/choice should primarily occur before a mission starts, however.

 

The test would need to be re-done every so often to make sure that the host's network and computer still meet the performance requirements.

 

I can't imagine that anything more than 10 Down/ 4 Up connection is required to host (with a decent computer).

 

Then, of course, is the dedicated server option.  Right now, their servers amount to basically data collection/store and a glorified match-maker.  

 

This definitely needs to be addressed in a timely fashion if they want this game to succeed.  People will be turned off when their experience is degraded by so much of the mechanics being done client-side and being effected by the host.

[Barnago]

I think this is a really ugly and systemic issue with the leveraging of users as hosts. It will never not be the case that some users simply have slow hardware and connections, and in an action game like Warframe a bad host produces some really catastrophic gameplay consequences.

 

It's an issue that absolutely needs to be addressed at some point. Either the game needs to do a much better job of surfacing connection quality to players and give them options to filter out unsuitable hosts, or simply needs to not allow players who fail some basic level of connectivity to be able to show up in public matchmaking results at all.

 

Maybe the solution is neither of those things, but something needs to happen to reduce how frequently players get matchmade into games with bad hosts. It's not acceptable to expect users to have to curate their own experience by leaving the game when they're matchmade into laggy games, only playing in private games with friends, etc.

[CarlitoB]

Guys, I'd like to know if it's just me or with the latest patch the lag issues are getting worst? 

I mean, I need a lot of time even to get into an alert mission. Much more of the matches I play are plagued with lag, than... a week ago. I'm a long time beta player, it never was this bad.

 

I never liked user hosts multiplayer games, because of this kind of problems. But I always thought that this one was by far the better approach I've seen. Or at least until it was closed beta...

 

So, it's just me?

[Gereinath-Hunter]

I didn't notice any serious lag problems early on in 7's release, for the most part it was the same as all of the 6 patches, but it got progressively worse as more users joined in. I don't know if that's any fault of the servers or matchmaking system that's in place due to the higher player count, or if it's just that there's a huge influx of players with really subpar machines.

 

-Bea

[Ithgare]

I can confirm that Warlyik is correct. I live in the midwest US and have a a connection with 10 down and 5 up. I have a good computer and i've hosted many many games without ever having any issues or complaints. I've had some cases were i've ran 3-5 consecutive missions. People would leave after the first one if the gameplay was bad. I think the majority of this issue is players with sub-par systems.

 

However, I would love to see them get dedicated servers because this would mean my "Strict Nat" issues would dissapear. I can't connect to the one person I would play with regularly who lives about 5 blocks from me. The only way I can is through another friend who plays rarely.

 

I can't imagine that anything more than 10 Down/ 4 Up connection is required to host (with a decent computer).

 

[Gereinath-Hunter]

Looking back at Warlyik's post, the part about the analyze network bit would be better suited to a back-end sort of thing, but at the same time it wouldn't be able to tell if they were running a bunch of other things at the time. For instance: I run youtube, I upload or stream stuff while I'm just idling in the solar system pretty often. I have roommates who, at specific times of the day, are also doing so. So if I'm just hanging out doing some fusion or a private game with a friend and it's like "Now's a good time to check your connection, LOL." then it becomes a problem. Then you may find yourself unable to host or something because you got caught at the wrong time.

 

Likewise, a button would easily be exploited. "Oh f*** I can't host... HEY, Clanmate/friend/sibling with a better computer and connection, can you log into my account and hit the analyze network button so I can host again?" I can promise there would be a lot of "Zomg my account got hax0red!" reports. Granted, that'd probably only really spike if/when the trading system is implemented proper. I dunno, it just seems like the network analyze bit would be difficult to work with.

 

-Bea

[RXIS]

I very often get "host migration" messages popping up and then kicking me to the solar system screen without any data saved.

 

This should be a priority issue DE!