Is The Net Code Ever Going To Be Fixed?

[TehJumpingJawa]

I of course refer to the way the game is super easy for everyone but the host, because you're essentially immune to mob attacks so long as you keep moving.

 

It seems peculiar that the devs are worrying about rebalancing weapons & abilities when something so fundamental as the net code prevents anyone but the host from experiencing the game as it is supposed to be played.

Edited April 27, 2013 by TehJumpingJawa

[strumpf]

Thumbs up.

 

The netcode/lags need to be number one priority!

Cuts down all the fun and motivation to play on for me.

[TehJumpingJawa]

Wow, only one reply to what is essentially the most important problem with warframe's gameplay at the moment.

Are people oblivious to this issue, or did I so completely cover the topic that nobody else has anything further to add?!?

Edited April 28, 2013 by TehJumpingJawa

[AberforthBrixby]

I find myself in agreement. I have a really good internet connection but many of the games I join in my region feature teleporting mobs and players and it's almost impossible to get kills. Defense is ridiculous since the pod damage doesn't update in real time either so it can go from 100% to 0 instantly when events finally transfer to my screen.

[TheVavil]

I am finding Co-Op mode pretty unplayable most of the time. The Solo play is great, and I am really enjoying it, but I wouldn't mind being able to hop into a random mission without the pain.

 

The occasional game where you get to experience things as they should be, are few and far between.

 

FPS at a ludicrously low level a lot of the time. Teleporting mobs. Being dropped into a mission when it is finished.

 

I just finished a Kappa MIssion. I got dropped in with 20 secs to go on the Pod, the frame rate was a hell of a lot less than 1fps. The timer finished before I even started to be able to move. Not fun.

[sLuGHelge]

It all depends on the Net-connection of the Host... if he's having ISDN or equal its causing lags to those who have a faster connection. (for example)

How bout adding Buttons  like "Quickplay but i just wanna join" and "Quickplay , yes i'm gonna host this game"

 

This wont avoid causing lags... but it could turn down the number of lownet hosts. since they're able to use "join only"

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

As you'll notice in my OP, I make no mention of latency, lag or ping; those are not the issues that concern me.

 

The issue I'm highlighting is that, regardless of host speed & latency, clients are nigh on invulnerable to enemy weapons fire so long as they keep moving.

The only danger to clients are stuns & knockdowns that prevent your movement (and thus allow the enemies to hit you), and insta-kill AoE boss attacks.

 

This issue is a fundamental flaw with the game that renders all other balance & difficulty issues moot.

[_PerfectSoldier_]

RAGE x3

[Esquilax]

The hosts upstream and sometimes his computers performance makes it lag. When I host for my buddies (100mbit upload, no eyecandy on already very smooth running rig) they claim it is like playing solo. Also it does help that the highest ping between me and them is 18ms.

 

It's the same in all games, the netcode. You can't put some "network smoothing" or "lag compensation" in this game really in my opinion. Instead the game should somehow determine between people in the party, which has the most suitable configuration available. For example this way: the lowest ping average between all members in the squad. Would ease up a lot. Also a option in configurations for "do not host" would be lovely, for people who know their hosting would lag for others. etc etc...

 

I just wish the controls stuck in animations would be fixed first...

[TehJumpingJawa]

The hosts upstream and sometimes his computers performance makes it lag. When I host for my buddies (100mbit upload, no eyecandy on already very smooth running rig) they claim it is like playing solo. Also it does help that the highest ping between me and them is 18ms.

 

That's contrary to my experience.

I always try to be a client, rather than host (as the fps hit when hosting is far too great, at times bringing me well below 60fps).

Yet I've never experienced a host that felt anything like the solo play experience.

 

Admittedly I always play pubs, and never query the host as to their system specs or geographical location - but one would expect at least some of my many hundreds of games would have been on 'good' (fast machine & low ping) hosts.

 

It's the same in all games, the netcode. You can't put some "network smoothing" or "lag compensation" in this game really in my opinion. Instead the game should somehow determine between people in the party, which has the most suitable configuration available. For example this way: the lowest ping average between all members in the squad. Would ease up a lot. Also a option in configurations for "do not host" would be lovely, for people who know their hosting would lag for others. etc etc...

 

I just wish the controls stuck in animations would be fixed first...

 

Latency issues should never make the core mechanics of the game easier, for it to do so is a symptom of horribly broken net code.

Edited May 8, 2013 by TehJumpingJawa

[Guest]

I am genuinely hoping that somewhere down the line we either get a variety of settings allowing us to pick who we can join (region, ping limit etc.) or dedicated servers.

 

The former is more likely but I'd happily settle for that.

[Aggh]

I love how people like to throw around netcode like it's some kind of magical word.  No amount of revision will allow people with a subpar connection to host or let people host people half way around the world efficiently. 

 

What the game needs is better match making and restrictions on who can host "online" coop games.  It plays fine when you have a host who is a reasonable distance from you and has a good enough connection to properly host.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Aggh

[TehJumpingJawa]

I love how people like to throw around netcode like it's some kind of magical word.  No amount of revision will allow people with a subpar connection to host or let people host people half way around the world efficiently. 

 

What the game needs is better match making and restrictions on who can host "online" coop games.  It plays fine when you have a host who is a reasonable distance from you and has a good enough connection to properly host.

 

Sure, good connections will help mask the problems - but the underlying issues will still remain.

 

That being, latency adversely effects core mechanics of the game.

The most important of these is that enemies stop behaving properly on the client's screen, resulting in the game becoming trivially easy.

[Aggh]

Sure, good connections will help mask the problems - but the underlying issues will still remain.

 

That being, latency adversely effects core mechanics of the game.

The most important of these is that enemies stop behaving properly on the client's screen, resulting in the game becoming trivially easy.

That only happens if you have a crappy host.  All peer to peer games have those kinds of issues.  No amount of dev time will change that.

 

Only matchmaking changes will mitigate that problem.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Aggh

[TehJumpingJawa]

That only happens if you have a crappy host.  All peer to peer games have those kinds of issues.  No amount of dev time will change that.

 

Only matchmaking changes will mitigate that problem.

 

Is this peer to peer, or host/client? It can't be both.

I suspect it's host/client, but with a great deal of the game logic off-loaded for client-side prediction. (it'd certainly explain the numerous AI & scripting desync bugs that exist.)

 

If they can't fix the networking so that co-op plays by precisely the same mechanics as solo, then we might as well all go home right now - the game will be a dismal failure.

Edited April 28, 2013 by TehJumpingJawa

[Aggh]

Is this peer to peer, or host/client? It can't be both.

I suspect it's host/client, but with a great deal of the game logic off-loaded for client-side prediction. (it'd certainly explain the numerous AI & scripting desync bugs that exist.)

 

If they can't fix the networking so that co-op plays by precisely the same mechanics as solo, then we might as well all go home right now - the game will be a dismal failure.

Peer to peer games have one of the player's computers act as the host.  That's why if the player acting as the host doesn't have a good enough connection (I've seen the game use 125 kb/s up when I'm hosting on infested defense missions) everyone else lags. 

 

It's an issue common to all peer to peer games and can only really be mitigated effectively by matchmaking.  No matter what kind of magic DE's engineers work they'll never be able to let someone in SEA with a .5 mbit upload speed host someone playing from the US east coast without issues.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Aggh

[TehJumpingJawa]

Peer to peer games have one of the player's computers act as the host.  That's why if the player acting as the host doesn't have a good enough connection (I've seen the game use 125 kb/s up when I'm hosting on infested defense missions) everyone else lags. 

 

It's an issue common to all peer to peer games and can only really be mitigated effectively by matchmaking. 

 

That isn't the definition of peer to peer; that's a negotiated host/client network.

 

In peer to peer communication every client holds a connection to ever other client as equal partners, with each passing game model updates to one-another. In this arrangement the game model can either be held in its entirety by each client (and thus has to be kept in-sync), or each client takes responsibility for a portion of the game model.

 

I don't think I've come across a shooter in recent memory that uses peer to peer networking; besides the trust issues, it simply doesn't fit the genre well. It's a much better fit for RTS games though.

 

Here's an excellent reference that google found for me; it seems to agree.

 

 

 

No matter what kind of magic DE's engineers work they'll never be able to let someone in SEA with a .5 mbit upload speed host someone playing from the US east coast without issues.

 

You don't have to look very far to find co-op MP games that work perfectly with far less upstream bandwidth than 0.5Mbps.

In fact I referenced one only a few posts above; Quake 2.

Playable on even a 56Kbps modem, and more importantly, regardless of latency the gameplay experience remains consisent whether you play solo or MP. You never get fcuked up behaviour such as the enemies becoming unresponsive, or the player becoming almost invulnerable to damage.

Edited April 28, 2013 by TehJumpingJawa

[87Doom87]

They should host there own games on there own servers.  making other people host there game is the cheap way out and I don't support cheap development and online game with bad random online play.

[Aggh]

That isn't the definition of peer to peer; that's a negotiated host/client network.

 

In peer to peer communication every client holds a connection to ever other client as equal partners, with each passing game model updates to one-another. In this arrangement the game model can either be held in its entirety by each client (and thus has to be kept in-sync), or each client takes responsibility for a portion of the game model.

 

In common conversation it's called peer to peer.  I could care less what the technical term for it is.

 

 

I don't think I've come across a shooter in recent memory that uses peer to peer networking; besides the trust issues, it simply doesn't fit the genre well. It's a much better fit for RTS games though.

 

Here's an excellent reference that google found for me; it seems to agree.

 

How about just about every single shooter on console?  And it's only really an issue for PvP shooters because of the issues of trying to mitigate host advantages.

 

With PvE shooters it's pretty much a non issue if the match making is done properly.

 

 

You don't have to look very far to find co-op MP games that work perfectly with far less upstream bandwidth than 0.5Mbps.

In fact I referenced one only a few posts above; Quake 2.

Playable on even a 56Kbps modem, and more importantly, regardless of latency the gameplay experience remains consisent whether you play solo or MP. You never get fcuked up behaviour such as the enemies becoming unresponsive, or the player becoming almost invulnerable to damage.

 

looool Quake 2?  Are you serious?  For one thing there is a lot less going on in a Q2 match.  Also, only the host needs that much upstream bandwidth, and only in the most busy situations where a lot is going on in a tight space(it's normally closer to 50-60 kb/s up in a normal mission).  Everyone else is using around 4 kb/s down 2 kb/s up.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Aggh

[TehJumpingJawa]

In common conversation it's called peer to peer.  I could care less what the technical term for it is.

 

People who are ignorant of what they're talking about; perhaps.

 

How about just about every single shooter on console?  And it's only really an issue for PvP shooters because of the issues of trying to mitigate host advantages.

 

With PvE shooters it's pretty much a non issue if the match making is done properly.

 

I can only speak for the various PC ports, as I don't play games on console.

However many use the Unreal engine, and that's a purely server/client model. (with client-side prediction, and latency compensation)

 

Of course you won't have dedicated servers on console, instead you'll have a machine nominated as the server using some kind of performance heuristic.

However that doesn't suddenly turn it from being a server/client architecture into peer to peer.

 

 

looool Quake 2?  Are you serious?  For one thing there is a lot less going on in a Q2 match.  Also, only the host needs that much upstream bandwidth, and only in the most busy situations where a lot is going on in a tight space(it's normally closer to 50-60 kb/s up in a normal mission).  Everyone else is using around 4 kb/s down 2 kb/s up.

 

Admittedly most of Q2's co-op maps are a fair bit quieter than Warframe's, but that's understandable given it's more than 15 years old.

There are plenty of more recent examples that feature environments as busy, or far busier than Warframe's:

Halo, Serious Sam, Borderlands & Bulletstorm are all good examples

 

They all work fine on broadband connections with modest upstream bandwidth (~0.5Mbps), and even when they are choked for bandwidth you don't see the seriously fcuked up behaviour witnessed in Warframe.

[Aerensiniac]

Refer to https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/35275-prohibitban-hosting-for-people-with-extreme-latency-issues/

[Codeacious]

Yeah, they really need to fix this- it's making the game extremely easy unless you play solo.

[Aggh]

People who are ignorant of what they're talking about; perhaps.

 

 

I can only speak for the various PC ports, as I don't play games on console.

However many use the Unreal engine, and that's a purely server/client model. (with client-side prediction, and latency compensation)

 

Of course you won't have dedicated servers on console, instead you'll have a machine nominated as the server using some kind of performance heuristic.

However that doesn't suddenly turn it from being a server/client architecture into peer to peer.

 

Admittedly most of Q2's co-op maps are a fair bit quieter than Warframe's, but that's understandable given it's more than 15 years old.

There are plenty of more recent examples that feature environments as busy, or far busier than Warframe's:

Halo, Serious Sam, Borderlands & Bulletstorm are all good examples

 

They all work fine on broadband connections with modest upstream bandwidth (~0.5Mbps), and even when they are choked for bandwidth you don't see the seriously fcuked up behaviour witnessed in Warframe.

c\_/ I've talked to game devs that have called it as such even.  It's what a lot of gamers call it so it's in no way uncommon for it to be seen called as such in normal conversation.

 

It's not just that they're quieter.  Q2 is an older a game built for older hardware and slower connection speeds.  Of course it would use less bandwidth.

 

Every game in recent memory that has a player act as host has these issues.  Bullet storm and halo are actually good examples of this.  I've run into plenty of bad hosts that lagged the game for everyone playing in those games.  If you haven't, you're either lying or haven't played those games much.

[AberforthBrixby]

c\_/ I've talked to game devs that have called it as such even.  It's what a lot of gamers call it so it's in no way uncommon for it to be seen called as such in normal conversation.

 

It's not just that they're quieter.  Q2 is an older a game built for older hardware and slower connection speeds.  Of course it would use less bandwidth.

 

Every game in recent memory that has a player act as host has these issues.  Bullet storm and halo are actually good examples of this.  I've run into plenty of bad hosts that lagged the game for everyone playing in those games.  If you haven't, you're either lying or haven't played those games much.

 

I've never heard someone call a host/client connection setup "peer to peer", someone with even a little networking or computer science knowledge would understand immediately why that is incorrect.

 

The current model is just too unstable. This game could really benefit from dedicated servers but obviously the money isn't there.

[Guest]

I've never heard someone call a host/client connection setup "peer to peer"

I don't know how. Peer to peer or P2P is an incredibly common term, it's what pretty much everybody refers to Xbox Live or PSN as.