Hostig games by players has to go

[Kerthis]

2 minutes ago, Zeclem said:

actually plenty of shooters are handled the same way as well. in fact, wf is the only relevant shooter out there that uses P2P.

so P2P is only good because we could play warframe even after de stopped supporting it? im terribly sorry to ask this but, are you high by any chance? and no, de makes more than enough money to have proper dedicated servers for servers downtime not being an issue. 

I even dare to say that cost is entirely different problem coz it applys more broadly. We can make esxcuse about literally how everything  cant be implemented because of the cost.

[Kerthis]

And guys, wake up DE admitted a while ago that p2p is a bad idea but it was necessary at that time. You wanna argue with that?

[Zeclem]

1 minute ago, Kerthis said:

I even dare to say that cost is entirely different problem coz it applys more broadly. We can make esxcuse about literally how everything  cant be implemented because of the cost.

the only problem with the dedicated servers i personally see is de isnt the best company when it comes to internal management, its evident by seeing them claim that they have no intentions of expanding their workforce(which they should, otherwise content droughts will always be a thing with this game) in any time soon, and we know money cant be an issue, not with how large the game has become. and expanding their studio workforce is something will bring more income to the studio anyway. 

[(PSN)robotwars7]

2 hours ago, Kerthis said:

What your're saying is Im suppose to mittigate that problem by myself which is ridiculous.

well DE isn't going to mitigate it for you. also, if you're trying to raise DE's attention, you're in the wrong place, they don't read GD. all your thread is accomplishing is making you and others frustrated. yes, P2P sucks sometimes, but that's just the way it is.

[Kerthis]

Just now, (PS4)robotwars7 said:

well DE isn't going to mitigate it for you. also, if you're trying to raise DE's attention, you're in the wrong place, they don't read GD. all your thread is accomplishing is making you and others frustrated. yes, P2P sucks sometimes, but that's just the way it is.

Im not frustrated. Im glad we are talking about it. Althou I dont understand the reasoning behind some people posts it is good to have some pov exchanged.

[Firetempest]

26 minutes ago, Kerthis said:

 it is good to have some pov exchanged.

Shouting down anyone who is fine with p2p*

[DrakeWurrum]

Despite the headaches, not worth the cost of dedicate servers.

[Kerthis]

27 minutes ago, Firetempest said:

Shouting down anyone who is fine with p2p*

I wouldnt call it shouting down. It's just everyone deffending it have failed to provide any reasonable argument for it so far. Well remotely reasonable thing was calling out the costs of the transition but as I have said already its not the problem of the solution itself, it is something different entirely.

PS: "because I like it how it is" is not a valid argument, Im sorry.

EDIT: this "fine" word in your sentence is more like:willing to tolerate. Because due to p2p lag, discconections, unwanted host migrations, being unable to finish mission, these all happen and that is a fact. And being fine with means more like how much of these affect the person in question.

EDIT2: After reading all of the comments and discussing many things in this thread Im starting to think that some people will just get offended if anyone say anything criticising their precious WF or DE, no matter if its for the greater good or not. Hell, maybe there should be a tag "trigger warning" to make this whole situation even more ridiculous.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Kerthis

[Althaline]

Here's the thing with dedicated servers: THEY HAVE A LOCATION TOO. This means that for those of us who don't live with DE in Canada we will have enormous ping all the time, rather than just when a bad host comes along.

That's not to mention the fact that anything less than 400 ping is completely tolerable...

[Helch0rn]

9 minutes ago, Kerthis said:

I wouldnt call it shouting down. It's just everyone deffending it have failed to provide any reasonable argument for it so far. Well remotely reasonable thing was calling out the costs of the transition but as I have said already its not the problem of the solution itself, it is something different entirely.

PS: "because I like it how it is" is not a valid argument, Im sorry.

EDIT: this "fine" word in your sentence is more like:willing to tolerate. Because due to p2p lag, discconections, unwanted host migrations, being unable to finish mission, these all happen and that is a fact. And being fine with means more like how much of these affect the person in question.

Here are reasons why I don't want DE to switch to dedicated servers:

1: Rewriting significant parts of the netcode would take up precious dev time and extend our current content drought

2: the amount and specs of servers needed would cost a truckload of money which might cause DE to abandon their current and really fair f2p system in favor of something more scummy in order to get more money to cover the costs (and neither them nor we want that)

3: the problems you describe are miniscule. I get a laggy host like once every 20-30 missions. host migration and not being able to progress a mission are even rarer (maybe 1 out of every 80-90 missions)

4: dedicated servers in one place of the world screw players that don't live there (i.e. the rest of the world)

[Goodwill]

I'll be all for dedicated servers, but the thing you need to ask is, will dedicated servers increase DE's profit (or worse, keep it steady) or will they stand to lose money either now or within the next 10 years? Now that's a rhetorical question because no one on this forum can answer that.

If you are being absolutely, absolutely serious about wanting dedicated servers, your best bet is to do a poll. If you manage to get at least 10 thousand signatures, I think that might be enough to get DE's attention. But other than that, you can't just simply come and make a suggestion and expect it to be taken seriously. Right now, the only thing you are getting is people voicing their opinion for or against your suggestion/demand and opinions don't pay for a server.

On the other hand, maybe DE is already looking into dedicated servers but their resources are stretched thin and they haven't came up with an infrastructure to handle Warframe's peak demands. Maybe they've look at other companies to host Warframe but they were asking for a ridiculous cut of the profits. Or maybe they need to build a new room at HQ and depending on their plot of land, that could take a year or 2 to suss it out with the LTO.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Goodwill

[Kerthis]

1 minute ago, Iamabearlulz said:

Here's the thing with dedicated servers: THEY HAVE A LOCATION TOO. This means that for those of us who don't live with DE in Canada we will have enormous ping all the time, rather than just when a bad host comes along.

That's not to mention the fact that anything less than 400 ping is completely tolerable...

See? this guy is trying to make a valid point and he is adressing a legitimate thing. Let me answer.

Thats why each region should have its own server. And these server combined in a network supported by even more gates to manage the trafic would be an excelent tool to help you play comfortably. You think Im inventing  new ideas here? These things work as we speak, check out other games.

Are we all in one big lan party basement discovering the internet as of now?

[Kerthis]

3 minutes ago, Goodwill said:

I'll be all for dedicated servers, but the thing you need to ask is, will dedicated servers increase DE's profit (or worse, keep it steady) or will they stand to lose money either now or within the next 10 years? Now that's a rhetorical question because no one on this forum can answer that.

If you are being absolutely, absolutely serious about wanting dedicated servers, your best bet is to do a poll. If you manage to get at least 10 thousand signatures, I think that might be enough to get DE's attention. But other than that, you can't just simply come and make a suggestion and expect it to be taken seriously. Right now, the only thing you are getting is people voicing their opinion for or against your suggestion/demand and opinions don't pay for a server.

On the other hand, maybe DE is already looking into dedicated servers but their resources are stretched thin and they haven't came up with an infrastructure to handle Warframe's peak demands. Maybe they've look at other companies to host Warframe but they were asking for a ridiculous cut of the profits. Or maybe they need to build a new room at HQ and depending on their plot of land, that could take year or 2 to suss out with the LTO.

Firstly thank you for taking the part in this discussion. If DE wants to expand this world and have more tools at their disposal transition to dedicated servers is inevitable because p2p is limiting them strongly in this regard. Voicing opinions is good. I want this idea to be discussed, so DE will know people talk about it.

Secondly, let's face it WF  grows  almost exponentially and with that comes bigger and bigger revenue. But its not only that, the thing that grows even faster are expectations. And DE will be eventually forced to experiment with new things because they cannot simply base all WF future on adding new plantes, frames and weapons. There will be new modes, new activities and other new stuff and p2p architecture is simply to archaic and inefficient to do so. If that was not true other big publishers would base their games on p2p and thats clearly not the case.

[Richtter]

Some times I get laggy hosts too but the first thing comes in my mind: This guy has a really poor internet or his location is really far.

If you don't live in the center of your country you will surelly suffers from bad connections many times.

 

When I find one, 98% of them are outside of my country(based on their language).

Edited August 9, 2018 by Richtter

[Methanoid]

4 hours ago, Kerthis said:

How long will we be condemned and forced to play in lag in every other game session because the host is happen to be equipped with a wooden pc and poor's man connection service? To all these guys because of whom I got "host migration" screen so many times that I've lost count. The 90's called, they want their internet back.

And to DE. When this will be resolved in any modern way? I know it was implemented to cut the expenses but now with all that revenue you guys can afford a few servers, come on...

EDIT: To clarify, I used specific example but my beef is with the whole system. I know I can mittigate that but this is not a real solution because I find this system archaic and being unable to grow anywhere from this point.

"a few servers" would still not be enough, dedicated server cost a lot, plenty of other games do the same including the game i originally bailed for to play Warframe more, which was mass Effect 3 Multiplayer, it like any othe rgame that functions the same is no different, its sensible and other peoples crappy connections cant magically be found out, you could easily connect to a host and have a fast ping, only to later realise you suffer packetloss to that host due to whatever reason along the route from you to him, the others on your team might not suffer the same issues because their route to the host is different to yours.

Nothing is perfect but theres certainly nothing much wrong that can easily be altered with what we have.

[Kerthis]

2 minutes ago, Methanoid said:

"a few servers" would still not be enough, dedicated server cost a lot, plenty of other games do the same including the game i originally bailed for to play Warframe more, which was mass Effect 3 Multiplayer, it like any othe rgame that functions the same is no different, its sensible and other peoples crappy connections cant magically be found out, you could easily connect to a host and have a fast ping, only to later realise you suffer packetloss to that host due to whatever reason along the route from you to him, the others on your team might not suffer the same issues because their route to the host is different to yours.

Nothing is perfect but theres certainly nothing much wrong that can easily be altered with what we have.

Im not saying it's easy, or cheap for that matter. Im simply stating it has to be done at some point to allow WF grow.

[Methanoid]

Just now, Kerthis said:

Im not saying it's easy, or cheap for that matter. Im simply stating it has to be done at some point to allow WF grow.

its already growing, has been for quite a while, wasting heaps of cash for a minimal impact to the occasional glitchy game is going to do them no good in the long run.

[Goodwill]

Just now, Kerthis said:

 

Honestly, I get your overall point that if Warframe is to continue expanding, it does need the infrastructure to do so.

What do you think if the dedicated server were to be optional (people can still choose to play on an inferior P2P network if it suits their needs) and subscription based? Even if it's only a few dollars a month ($1 - $3)? Just want to know if you'd be for or against that idea or if you'd think it be unreasonable?

[LSG501]

I don't think we need dedicated servers, although we have the same 'shut down' issue due to being partially served by DE servers (ship, relays etc, connecting to other players) as a dedicated server setup, but I do feel the code used to assign host needs to be improved a LOT. 

The host selection code needs to be fixed in the following ways (at minimum):

• minimum pc system requirements so that the host can actually cope with the job of being host (hopefully min spec adjustments will help this a bit)
• measure the internet connection DURING a mission when stuff is actually happening rather than when we're on the ship where a ping of seconds would be fine
• a 'do not host' opt out code for those that know they have 'dodgy' internet... ie for those on satellite internet etc where the pings are slower and it's not quite as stable etc (could do with this NOW without any other changes)
• actually respect our ping settings.... I'm sick of being set at 250ms (it's more than playable at that ping) and then ending up with a host that is up to 2000ms (yes 2 SECONDS) for the ping.
• some sort of 'migration' code would be nice to deal with hosts where the ping increases excessively during the mission and makes everything lag etc... this would need to be DE end to prevent abuse though. 

Now this won't fix 'everything' as there are nuances with p2p due to routing of the signal but it would definitely cut back on it.

Edited August 9, 2018 by LSG501

[Kerthis]

2 minutes ago, Goodwill said:

Honestly, I get your overall point that if Warframe is to continue expanding, it does need the infrastructure to do so.

What do you think if the dedicated server were to be optional (people can still choose to play on an inferior P2P network if it suits their needs) and subscription based? Even if it's only a few dollars a month ($1 - $3)? Just want to know if you'd be for or against that idea or if you'd think it be unreasonable?

Bringing up the subs in here can get ur head fall. 😉

But still If WF moved to sub based game (I remind you many games have failed trying to push subscription based model) I would have no problem with that. If it would come with even more additional content, then yea. sign me in. But Im afraid that wouldnt fly in the long run and DE knows it. In case anyone gets it wrong and run toward me with a pitchfork. Im not prasing sub based business model. Im just consistent with my beliefs. Im already paying too much for this game so yea, why not - if that would get me a great infrastructure to play on and tons of content to play with then yes Im ok with that.

[dated]

Don't mind me i just salty because my dung 80's net connection... i just stay on the corner with my high ping,one line reply while waiting a lower ping trap into my laggy host

[Aeon94]

All DE has to do ;

• Make " Ping Limit " worth something , currently doesn't work. Matchmaking still lets us join to 1000+ MS sessions.
• Add " Never Host " option , so people who has awful connetions won't be hosts if they have it enabled.
• Improve Matchmaking System and fix ongoing issues ( losing loot on host migrations etc ).

Dedicated Servers mean slower updates and weekly maintenances which most of us don't want. Especially when we consider content draughts and people's available playtimes.

P2P is a flawed system ( that could use improvements and fixes ) but better option than dedicated servers, imho.

[Kerthis]

Just now, dated said:

Don't mind me i just salty because my dung 80's net connection... i just stay on the corner with my high ping,one line reply while waiting a lower ping trap into my laggy host

Haha I like that. 😄

[Erytroxylin]

4 hours ago, Inspector said:

You should also know you can limit the ms number to what games you joined. 

Please tell me how to do this. Joining the random games where my latency to the host makes in virtually unplayable has been the most frustrating thing to me.

[(XBOX)Blue Wyzerd]

After playing For Honor in the P2P days and then coming back to WF, it was amazing how much better DE handled their P2P than Ubisoft.  Though it may not be optimal, I do think their P2P network works very well compared to other games.  So I give them props for that.  Dedicated servers would improve performance, there's no doubt about that but I do think "P2P is better for the longevity of the game" is a valid point.  I would dread the day I read, "DE shuts down WF servers for good".  So, that being said if they were going to go the dedicated server route, I would definitely be in favor of having a P2P option available as well.