Matchmaking: Please Disable Host Migration

[SanctumDraconis]

It is that simple, host migration does not work, please disable it. It is extremely annoying that it kicks most players in a squad and on top of that chooses the worst host posible. THNX

[MM209]

The host migrations occur when the host quits; if there was no migration it would be forced to kick everyone out anyway.

 

Sure it doesn't always seem to work but it does most of the time, I rather keep decent odds of being able to finish a mission then have a 100% chance of being SOL.

[(PSN)SancticuS]

Hard to get rid of it in a P2P enviroment, but they should definitivly pause the game when it happens. Because nothing is worse than having to reload the level and when you get back in your are dead, the pod your defending is destroyed, you are the only one, life support is gone etc etc etc

[Kaotyke]

Sorry bub, but as it was said before me: The game is made with Player2Player Connection, if the player who is the host quits, you will have to change the host, IF DE(L) puts dedicated servers, that will be the end of it, till then taking of "Host Mitigation" is IMPOSSIBRU!

[Rexlars]

It's [size=6]FAR[/size] from working most of the time. It seldom works.

 

With that being said, yes, it would kick everyone out anyway so they might as well keep it for those rare occasions it does happen to work correctly. In the meantime, they could just improve upon it. 

[Cyborger1]

I don't usually have any problems with host migrations, besides the fact it doesn't wait for everyone to be loaded back in before giving the game the go to keep going.

[FREQ1989]

It works the same as setting a ping limit, meaning it doesn't. it will just pick someone and not factor anything into it. But as people have said, this will be here until we get dedicated servers, which will not happen for a very long time, providing that it ever does happen.

[OverlordMcGeek]

There is no way to DISABLE host migration this a peer to peer game. If you don't want any possibility of a host migration then play solo.

[Wiegraf]

I'm just trying to weight in the statement that basically means "I prefer to be assured that the mission fails if the host quits rather than have a chance to continue and complete it in the instance the host decides to leave for any reason whatsoever which might include intentional trolling as much as network problems."

Edited September 16, 2014 by Wiegraf

[direcyphre]

I'm just trying to weight in the statement that basically means "I prefer to be assured that the mission fails if the host quits rather than have a chance to continue and complete it in the instance the host decides to leave for any reason whatsoever which might include intentional trolling as much as network problems."

That's about all I'm reading here.

 

Personally, I rarely have problems with host migration, other than some people not reloading fast enough while enemies are attacking. I've ended up dead by the time the game starts in defense.

[darthdart]

Peer to peer has it's limits. This game will never have dedicated servers so host migration is going to stay.

 

Also, if you are playing online and don't want the game lagging out, lower your ping limit in the options.

 

But good luck connecting to anyone unless they live inside your mailbox.

 

Or here's a thought, why don't you host?

Edited September 16, 2014 by darthdart

[(PSN)Zeylon]

It might be nice to freeze the session until all players can be reconnected.  90% of the time, host migration in defense = game over/mission failed because you load back into a dead party/destroyed objective.

[Cryp2Nite]

If this S#&$ty latency based system wouldn't always choose the one with a dial up connection as host at the beginning

we would encounter less of such situations. That alone would improve gameplay experience so much.

[xethier]

Host migrations, ping limiters, etc. These things are all useful... to a point.

Removal of host migrations would basically just kick anybody who didn't maintain a connection with the host back to their respective ships... which, by the way, is what happens currently on 95% of host migrations. So you've already gotten what you're asking for.

 

Ping limiters work fine until the last person connects, then all bets are off.

In many cases (and host migrations are the typical end-result of this) the host has two players connected to him. The host (and clients) are cruising along fine, but if the host has limited upload bandwidth. (say 85k/sec ... btw this is what most DSL users have available (768kbps/upload ~approx)) His response to any additional client shows reasonable pings (call it 40ms). The problem crops up when that last player connects. At this point his bandwidth is insufficient to host, the uplink is saturated, UDP packets (which this game runs on) start to be dropped due to it. End result: pings go through the roof and eventually lead to a host migration.

 

So unless you can magically speed up a large portion of the players internet connections... there really isn't a solution. 

Better host election initially (one that takes maximum upload bandwidth into account -- the current system doesn't)

reduced overall bandwidth requirements. (currently running around 120k/sec upload required under heavy load) <-- under this and you risk high pings and eventual host migration with a full roster of clients.

Limiting # of client systems that can connect. (to 1 or 2 so that 3rd person doesn't break everything)

adding in the option of a player forced host election and migration.

this way a team that is suffering problems can force a new election and migration under somewhat controlled conditions. <-- could be used for trolling so not an ideal solution.

 

any of these would help.

Edited September 16, 2014 by xethier

[Cryp2Nite]

Host migrations, ping limiters, etc. These things are all useful... to a point.

Removal of host migrations would basically just kick anybody who didn't maintain a connection with the host back to their respective ships... which, by the way, is what happens currently on 95% of host migrations. So you've already gotten what you're asking for.

 

Ping limiters work fine until the last person connects, then all bets are off.

In many cases (and host migrations are the typical end-result of this) the host has two players connected to him. The host (and clients) are cruising along fine, but if the host has limited upload bandwidth. (say 85k/sec ... btw this is what most DSL users have available (768kbps/upload ~approx)) His response to any additional client shows reasonable pings (call it 40ms). The problem crops up when that last player connects. At this point his bandwidth is insufficient to host, the uplink is saturated, UDP packets (which this game runs on) start to be dropped due to it. End result: pings go through the roof and eventually lead to a host migration.

 

So unless you can magically speed up a large portion of the players internet connections... there really isn't a solution. 

Better host election initially (one that takes maximum upload bandwidth into account -- the current system doesn't)

reduced overall bandwidth requirements. (currently running around 120k/sec upload required under heavy load) <-- under this and you risk high pings and eventual host migration with a full roster of clients.

Limiting # of client systems that can connect. (to 1 or 2 so that 3rd person doesn't break everything)

 

any of these would help.

 

Exactly. That's the problem.

 

From another thread --->

That's all true. My point still remains. The majority of laggy game sessions is because of insufficient host upload

bandwidth, and not because of the distance between host/clients.

 

One with a typical european 1mbit (about 1/10 of that is upstream) connection is a horrible host.

ALL other factors are just irrelevant, cause no matter where you live, what provider you are using,

what backbones and routing your packet goes through - you will experience heavy lags as a client.

It just doesn't matter if your "idle" ping to this person is 50ms or 400ms, as soon as the game is running

and the net code is trying to shove 1.1mbit through is 0.1mbit line, the latency skyrocketing in the

thousands to the point where the connection drops.

 

And that's why I am saying that a simple latency measurement is the wrong way to determine the

client/host. The problem is: I highly doubt there is a 1:3 ratio of people with connections capable of

hosting games, not not capable of hosting games. Means there is no way for all of us to enjoy

non laggy games. Besides DE introduce a dedicated server system or DE improve the net code

by alot. 1mbit upstream for Defense/Mobile Defense/Survival with a full team is just too much.

Way too much. And it's multiple times as much as other comparable games requires.

De should add a way of tagging our self as a host (non host) or client. That would at least

add another layer of comfort and would make daily WF life way more enjoyable.

[Wiegraf]

It might be nice to freeze the session until all players can be reconnected.  90% of the time, host migration in defense = game over/mission failed because you load back into a dead party/destroyed objective.

 

I think a few games does that : basically, they 'pause' the action then have a countdown start, about 5 seconds, which gives time for people to 'get back into the saddle' so to speak and resume at the same time. I think it's CoD (I haven't played on in ages but I remember something like that, leading to instance of two enemies standing face to face and waiting for the countdown to expire to quickly shoot the other in the face).

 

So a little countdown to unfreeze the action would make it less likely to be caught in the aftermath, I think.

[SanctumDraconis]

Hi  I am the OP

 

I just wanted to point out that the worst case of host migration ( in my opinion) is right after the mission in launched. In my case, a 98% of the time 2 players  get disconnected and go back to ships. The remaining 2%:  some of us get to the mission but game chooses the worst host available. 

 

Oh did I mention that in this case  of "launch" host migration IF the owner of the key gets kicked and the other players managed to get to the mission , it IS AN INSTANT fail mission?

This initial host migration is the one  i would love to get rid off. 

 

I know that host migration in on-going missions can not be avoided

Edited September 16, 2014 by SanctumDraconis

[Wiegraf]

Hi  I am the OP

 

I just wanted to point out that the worst case of host migration ( in my opinion) is right after the mission in launched. In my case, a 98% of the time 2 players  get disconnected and go back to ships. The remaining 2%:  some of us get to the mission but game chooses the worst host available. 

 

Oh did I mention that in this case  of "launch" host migration IF the owner of the key gets kicked and the other players managed to get to the mission , is IS AN INSTANT fail mission?

This initial host migration is the one  i would love to get rid off. 

 

I know that host migration in on-going missions can not be avoided

 

..... Ooooooooooooooohhhhhhhh!

 

Well, that clear things up! Yeah, well the 'launch' host migration isn't necessary... but it ensures at least that all players have the best possible connection to the selected host. You used to run into instances of people setting up a key run and all three players who joined lagged horribly.

 

As for the owner's quitting causing the mission to fail, that's to prevent people from abusing the system in having them able to finish the mission without the owner's key being consumed since it's only consumed at a mission's succesful completion. It's why if the owner of the key leaves, the mission automatically fails since the one who provided the means for the mission to begin with has left. Unless they changed the system so that the key is consumed the moment the mission starts, that's something that's likely to stay here on out.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Wiegraf

[direcyphre]

Personal statistics of a "90%+ fail rate" are most definitely not global statistics. My experiences are quite the opposite, as I've rarely completely been  booted from a mission from a host migration.

[Gerrand]

This happens to me quite often - especially when im hosting. After reading this thread I'm going to try hosting a few voids with only two pugs invited - because seeing pugs disconnect half way through  my hosted void missions for no apparent reason doesn't leave me feeling great about myself.

 

One really annoying facet of host migration is that you seem to lose any mods you collected when migrating. I've had several survival and excavation runs where I'd find 2+ rare fusion cores, host migrate, and they'd be gone. Much sadness :(