Why Doesn't The Game Choose The Best Host Before Each Session?

[muccmaster]

This is something that should be in EVERY multiplayer game that relies on p2p connections. Instead of just having the game choose the first member of each group as the host it should do a quick check before each game to pick the best host. Way too often the worst host is picked and it seems to have gotten worse since the patch that screwed up matchmaking. Lag should not be as big an issue as it is for a 4 player PC game.

 

Oh and before anyone mentions the ping limit option, I highly doubt it even works. I have it set to 200 and still run into completely unplayable hosts.

Edited July 8, 2013 by muccmaster

[TheSame]

+10 to this idea

[Tsukinoki]

Ping limit doesnt work because a large part of the lag comes from people with either:
A) Poorer computers
B) Lower upload speeds.

And B is the more important of the two.

The ping limit is how many MS a ping takes, which is a good lag measurement when there is a dedicated server hosting everything.  When a peer is hosting the upload speed is much more important.

The problem with what you are asking for is that checking upload speed is very hard, if not impossible, to do at run time, while ping is.  Simple as that.

While your idea would be great, its impractical and would be nearly, if not completely, impossible to actually achieve.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Tsukinoki

[muccmaster]

Ping limit doesnt work because a large part of the lag comes from people with either:

A) Poorer computers

B) Lower upload speeds.

And B is the more important of the two.

The ping limit is how many MS a ping takes, which is a good lag measurement when there is a dedicated server hosting everything.  When a peer is hosting the upload speed is much more important.

The problem with what you are asking for is that checking upload speed is very hard, if not impossible, to do at run time, while ping is.  Simple as that.

While your idea would be great, its impractical and would be nearly, if not completely, impossible to actually achieve.

If games like Call of Duty can check for the best host on consoles in a few seconds there's no reason this game cant.

Edited July 8, 2013 by muccmaster

[Tsukinoki]

If games like Call of Duty can check for the best host on consoles in a few seconds there's no reason this game cant.

And COD does not do that.

For the consoles they actually have hosted servers that runs the games, the people playing are clients to that server.

The "host" is just the one who started the instance.

[muccmaster]

And COD does not do that.

For the consoles they actually have hosted servers that runs the games, the people playing are clients to that server.

The "host" is just the one who started the instance.

That's not true at all. COD does not use dedicated servers, it's p2p for almost every game except Battlefield on consoles. Games like Gears of War were notorious for this because the host had such an advantage. There definitely is a good way to check for the best host of each session because this is one of the few games that has piss poor hosts being chosen.

[Kingis]

Would it be possible to have a "host rank" which would be checked upon logging in each session? Taking that 10seconds extra if you wish to be hosting games for others. If the capabilities would not be sufficient a rank would not be granted with the exception of voids where host has to be the lobby leader.

I see the problem in where this would limit the number of available games, but I'd rather go solo than than have warping units around my screen. Another problem would be in it that it is suppose to be a co-op game as well, and without the ability to host a game but a will to do certain mission it would limit the possibility of starting the mission as Co-op to which others could join.

 

If dedicated servers would be usable for such a use where a host rank has not been obtained, but a mission would be wished to start.
a) the mission would start after a certain timelimit on the dedicated server
b) only if host rank would not be active on the initiator
c) only if no same mission would be active with a p2p host

[SilentCynic]

Besides the obvious things like upload speed and raw processing power, you should also keep in mind that latency is relative. I'm in South Africa. I get, at best, 200ms to EU, 350ms to the US, etc.

 

The fact of the matter is that, in Peer-to-Peer connections, the people who are lagging depends on who you ask. I play fine with friends on this side of the world, getting ~50ms, for instance. When a foreigner joins us and gets 200ms, who's lagging? Us? Him/her? Who'll you rate as the 'best' host? What will you use as a target to test their latency to?

Edited July 10, 2013 by SilentCynic

[Niavlys77]

A million times this!! The game NEEDS to determine the best host available!

 

Too many times players with low upload speeds (including myself) are set as host, and it ruins the game for the other players.

 

Simply testing players ping and upload speeds when they log in could easily be setup so that players are tiered by host-ability.

 

Please DE, do something about this!

[ChrizzieCostanzie]

+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 for this to get implemented. I'm tired of playing solo because every room I join has a bad host. 

[MattHarrigan]

+1. Good idea

[Carcharias]

I agree that we are living in the future and there should be some way to check for the best host. I'd be more then happy to wait for up to 30 seconds or more while a little host judging icon spins around and chooses. I have no idea how hard it would be. But judging from some other games, there has got to be a way somehow.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Carcharias