Host Election Improvement Request

[xethier]

The latest host election feature is a step in the right direction.

Host system speed seems to be a major problem for many players.

But that's not all that needs to be addressed.

 

I'll use myself as an example.

I'm running a fairly powerful desktop that's more than enough to handle warframe.

My internet connection, however, is a trainwreck.

5.5mbps/768kbps DSL connection.

However, I built my own router to combat part of that issue. (the supplied one was garbage)

 

End result is that my ping times are very low. (20-30ms to most local sources)

 

However, my upload speed is limited below what is required to properly host.

The result of this is that I'm chosen to host 99% of the time. (low pings & fast pc)

The recent alerts were a great example of how badly that can go.

Survival places a heavy strain on the host's upload bandwidth. And for someone in my position almost always results in a host migration when things get hectic.

 

I've set the new system type to laptop hoping that would help reduce the frequency at which I'm chosen to host, but alas, unless i'm constantly starting a match, checking to see if I'm joining one in progress or "waiting for players". Canceling if the latter and trying again.

 

Without fail, if I choose to allow players to join me before the start of the mission, I'm ALWAYS the host. So for me, the election feature still doesn't work.

 

My request: Please introduce a feature to check host's maximum upload bandwidth and weight host election based on the result. 85k/sec isn't enough to handle heavy survival / defense and I feel awfully frustrated having to endure the strings of abuse/profanity that inevitably follow my being chosen as host.

 

(to those responses that will inevitably happen on this thread, no, i can't get a different ISP, i'm stuck with the one i have and they refuse to run cable out here) 

[Drake_Gunn]

Like the idea, I've been in a similar boat before and I can see how this would help. Personally I usually play on my low end laptop so hosting for me is not a good idea anyways though.

[Lord_of_Lords]

DE is rightfully against adding a "Do not host" option however they also don't seem to get that their game requires a lot of upload bandwidth.

 

The easy way to do what you have suggested would be to have the client download a test file from their server during patching and upload the same test file back.  Then track the times and store until next patch (when the process is repeated).  They could even add a button in the launcher options to "Calibrate Hosting" so when a client switches networks the user can manually update the hosting settings if they care.

[xethier]

DE is rightfully against adding a "Do not host" option however they also don't seem to get that their game requires a lot of upload bandwidth.

 

The easy way to do what you have suggested would be to have the client download a test file from their server during patching and upload the same test file back.  Then track the times and store until next patch (when the process is repeated).  They could even add a button in the launcher options to "Calibrate Hosting" so when a client switches networks the user can manually update the hosting settings if they care.

 

I'd suggest that each time a client logs in the test is run. This way there is no cruft data. This is essentially what I'd advocate though.

 

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say "rightfully against" but I do understand their attitude on the subject. It does leave people like me in a bit of a bind though.