Sy-kess Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 So I, like most people, have experienced the dreaded "Host with a potato for an internet connection", and I've been brainstorming possible ideas for fixs, since it's really a make or break thing for games. While I love waiting 5-10 seconds for each and every single door to open, it really screws with my immersion.1: Host Migration Vote: a simple vote system similar to "Left 4 Dead" or something in which a vote would be cast and if 3/4 players pass it it'll either A) Test for best connection (Similar to how it is when the host leaves now) or B) be able to nominate a person during the vote to be the next host. 1a. Possibly allow the current host to transfer host to another player through their own UI? (Give a confirm/deny pop up when they press esc, similar to invites inside of missions) 2: Official DE Hosted Servers: Simple, if you lag, then it drags you down, not everyone else. It would lead to increased overall cost for DE, however official servers are generally a pretty common necessity for most Multiplayer games. 3. Do an automatic host migration at the start of each mission to the player with the current best connection. Feel free to add suggestions/poke holes in the ones I currently have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geninrising Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 +1 on the idea op, however there are several problems. #1 the automatic host migration checks still do not prioritize the best connection in 9 out of 10 circumstances. It seems as though the system fails to recognize potential problems in the chosen host. We have a clan mate that has a great connection but is behind a strict NAT and when we play with him, should the initial chosen host DC for whatever reason he is sometimes chosen, instantly our entire group dissolves due to the fact that we cannot connect properly to him as host. #2 Hosted DE servers- While this is the best solution of all the game would then potentially come down to DE having to shell out more money thus increasing all potential costs for us players(because corporations always pass the buck). Although I think in this circumstance due to the partnership that DE worked out I think they have the capital to do so without impacting players. This would also provide additional inherent risks of players not being able to play sometimes due to hackers being able to attack the servers. While currently we still suffer from a bit of this, in situations where servers are hosted this problem can be much more pronounced and more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashnal Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 *snip* I would like to inform you that #3 is already implemented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sy-kess Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) I would like to inform you that #3 is already implemented. #3 isn't implemented in a way that's working then as I can be in a lobby ( 300 download 20 upload and 10-20 ping) and the host will start the game, and it'll continue to allow their potato connection to be host. +1 on the idea op, however there are several problems. #1 the automatic host migration checks still do not prioritize the best connection in 9 out of 10 circumstances. It seems as though the system fails to recognize potential problems in the chosen host. We have a clan mate that has a great connection but is behind a strict NAT and when we play with him, should the initial chosen host DC for whatever reason he is sometimes chosen, instantly our entire group dissolves due to the fact that we cannot connect properly to him as host. #2 Hosted DE servers- While this is the best solution of all the game would then potentially come down to DE having to shell out more money thus increasing all potential costs for us players(because corporations always pass the buck). Although I think in this circumstance due to the partnership that DE worked out I think they have the capital to do so without impacting players. This would also provide additional inherent risks of players not being able to play sometimes due to hackers being able to attack the servers. While currently we still suffer from a bit of this, in situations where servers are hosted this problem can be much more pronounced and more often. #1 would have to be redone from how it currently is, however it'd be a fix that doesn't require a lot of capital investment like #2 would. #2, A lot of game corporations take upon the mantle of hosting their own servers, and while I like the way DE currently has it going, the potato host is just painful, and this would be a way to alieviate that. Also, ideally I'd rather Warframe not be swapped over to a server host type of thing, as that would cut down on the funds they could allocate elsewhere. #2a. I do however think there should be DE hosted PvP servers (for use with their new PvP mode.) Edited February 12, 2015 by SaviorSykess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidathe Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) Give everyone Google Fiber. For free. Also, FTL connections. Edited February 12, 2015 by Sidathe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sy-kess Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 Give everyone Google Fiber. For free. Also, FTL connections. That's literally the best idea. ever. +1'd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now