Hostig games by players has to go

[ace1868]

I dont have the Best internet like some of you nor the Super Gaming PC either but what I do have is an awesome gaming experience with the way things are. Yeah ounce in a while I get a laggy match or even an unplayable match but just like RL I exercise my Rights to Choice. I choose to Leave or stay. After all its not like its a daily or every single match is going to be Laggy or unplayable and for some of you Super Gaming pc players are having that problem daily then its maybe you are the ones with the brick pc,and stone age internet. 

 

[FashionFrame]

DE already has systems implemented for you so you can find the best connection. Use them. 

Only system more I wish they had was "host only" so that when I start a mission, I'm automatically the host. It might really limit the chance of me getting people in my squad because a whole ton of other people would probably try the same, but still better than nothing. 

Literally the only reason I can see DE not doing servers is because it's saving them money. 

Oh, and yeah, this isn't under feedback, DE isn't going to see this because you put it in the wrong forum. 

Edited August 9, 2018 by FashionFrame

[Kronxito]

+1    Please put this in feedback forums.  DE wont read anything from general forums.

This needs to go, because in the spanish version, the game puts Europe and American players all together.  So when you look for squad (being in Europe region), you have 50% of getting an American player as a host.  This means warranteed 300 ping or more in your mission.

This is damn b***s**t and has to go.

We need servers!!!  This game is big and wealthy enough for implementing it.  Please DE make it possible. Thanks.

Edited August 9, 2018 by AnGeL_KRoM

[DishSoap]

People are actually defending P2P over dedicated servers. Oh man, the forums really are "that bad".

Edited August 9, 2018 by DishSoap

[Shion963]

If they really can afford to buy server hosting for every region and provide an overall net performance increase for everyone (within reason, obviously excluding bad connection or PCs), then sure. Otherwise I'd rather stick to P2P, warts and all.

Moving to dedicated hosting for the hope of future growth is putting the cart before the horse, IMO. Warframe isn't that big as compared to your triple-A fare, and spending like a triple-A dev won't suddenly give it that attention.

[Kronxito]

4 minutes ago, Shion963 said:

Warframe isn't that big as compared to your triple-A fare, and spending like a triple-A dev won't suddenly give it that attention.

36.000.000 registered users is not "that big" for you???  Wow...

[FashionFrame]

Just now, AnGeL_KRoM said:

36.000.000 registered users is not "that big" for you???  Wow...

Doesn't mean all of them play at once you know. Steam alone shows this.

https://steamcharts.com/app/230410

Yeah there's other platforms, but say they all have those same numbers, that's still a FRACTION of how many people are registered. Just because it says "Hey that's how many accounts are made" doesn't mean they all play the game still.

[SilverBones]

Firstly, people need to calm themselves. If we want to have a civilized discussion on the pros and cons of hosted services vs. PTP, then people shouting down other poster’s experiences gain nothing. Keep it civil folks, or the thread is getting locked.

Secondly, let me give you a little bit of what I know. In my day job, I am a SysAdmin for another large video game publisher, and I can tell you this without any hesitation, dedicated servers are not just expensive, they are E X P E N S I V E.

Literally, millions of dollars of network infrastructure are needed to cover games with such large player bases, and on top of that, you have to double up that infrastructure to allow for redundancy. You then multiply that by having to rent datacenters all over the world, and you can see how this cost can quickly become overwhelming.

Edit: This does also not take into account the rental costs that are paid month-to-month for hosting said services. Costs vary of course, but they can total to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to maintain said infrastructure.

It is not about saving a few bucks here and there, dedicated servers for worldwide players can incur costs that would quickly wipe out most small development studios.

Okay, my personal input is done. Please continue the discussion civilly.

 

-SB

[Johnny5five]

Alright SilverBones so your post hasn't explained why players can't toggle a switch that says host/never host? Can you shed some light on that request? Yes I know there will still be people that don't care how their situation effects others or are aholes that are out to troll.  There isn't anything that can be done in that situation except dedicated servers.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Johnny5five

[(XBOX)Kuljack]

The OP is clearly trolling here.

I would like to see an option implemented where you can choose to be the host for a random queue though. I am often caught in a loading loop on X1 joining public matches for the Acolyte event. I know everyone is trying to jam into a session, so if I could start a public group and control remaining as host when I queue in... that would be neat.

[Nesodos]

2 hours ago, AnGeL_KRoM said:

36.000.000 registered users is not "that big" for you???  Wow...

You know there is a difference between AAA games with a 60 bucks pricetag, 3-5 20 bucks (more or less mandatory) DLC + microtransactions and a completely f2p grind shooter that lets you trade for its premium currency?

[SilverBones]

35 minutes ago, Johnny5five said:

Alright SilverBones so your post hasn't explained why players can't toggle a switch that says host/never host? Can you shed some light on that request? Yes I know there will still be people that don't care how their situation effects others or are aholes that are out to troll.  There isn't anything that can be done in that situation except dedicated servers.

On a personal level, I don't see an issue in that outside of programming. That is why feedback is important. My response was not in regards to what could be done to make the current connectivity model better, only that eliminating it entirely is not a decision that is taken lightly or cheaply. Having the toggle within the PTP environment might also have knock-on effects, but there are some QoS settings that are already in place to decide the best host.

DE know their system back-end better than I. Suggestions like this are quite legitimate though. I just don't know the whole picture enough to argue whether it should be implemented or not.

[renleech]

Mass effect 3 multiplayer was P2P and had the options to host and join separated. Warframe became open beta in 2013 and still does not have these options.

WHY?

[Johnny5five]

52 minutes ago, (XB1)Kuljack said:

The OP is clearly trolling here.

I would like to see an option implemented where you can choose to be the host for a random queue though. I am often caught in a loading loop on X1 joining public matches for the Acolyte event. I know everyone is trying to jam into a session, so if I could start a public group and control remaining as host when I queue in... that would be neat.

While OP could have been less inflammatory they are just expressing frustration thats been building over time so its understandable from that perspective.  I get frustrated as well after spending a good deal of money on a good PC and good internet only to have all of that reduced to dog poo as soon as a host with a terrible connection appears.  And that happens with enough frequency to cause frustration.    60 dollar AAA games have a paywall preventing those less fortunate or those that just don't want to spend the money from playing it.  This is a free to play game that has an extremely low entrance requirement.  I just don't think DE are doing enough at this point to address it.  At least it seems that way.  Lack of communication might be the reason.

 

Thank you for your input SilverBones, its always nice to have professional input from the "inside".

Edited August 9, 2018 by Johnny5five

[Inspector]

4 hours ago, Erytroxylin said:

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.

Options -> Gameplay -> Matchmaking Ping Limit
This effectively limits what games you will go into based on their ms to yours. This can make matchmaking take more than normal, or may force you to start a game as host.

[Zepp_]

Why is this titled Megathread?  Were multiple threads merged into it.  Remove the tag.

[TinFoilMkIV]

While I agree that P2P isn't an ideal connection type, I find it to be adequate the vast majority of the time, and switching to dedicated servers seems unlikely at best.

For those talking about both how long Warframe has been around, that doesn't exactly make the switch more realistic. In fact it likely makes it even harder to shift from P2P to dedicated servers. Unless you build a game with the intention to be able to swap between connection types, it's going to be very difficult even with a relatively simple game. Given the circumstances of Warframes early days, I'd ask why DE bothered wasting resources and dev time on such things if they had. Assuming they did not do any of this, a fairly reasonable assumption in my opinion, then the age of the game is actually a hindrance. First you have to have someone who's familiar with the original netcode, and remembers how all the pieces fit together to even consider trying this, and then you have to replace the code and how it interacts with every single part of the game. Even if money were not an issue, this is a monumental task.

For the money side of things, as has been brought up, good dedicated server setups can become very expensive. Specially when dealing with essentially a global product across multiple systems. DE may be enjoying a great deal of success currently, but their budget is based on the P2P cost of operations. Not something that can be shifted very easily. In a perfect world, I'd be all for shifting to reliable server based connection, but I don't think it's an actual possibility, and I can live with that.

 

While it may be easy to overlook, we also enjoy some fairly nice benefits of good use of P2P being the main connection type. For one, the actual requirements to access the game seem to be far more lenient than full multiplayer server based games. I have been on networks that do not allow a connection to virtually any multiplayer game, yet I can log into Warframe just fine. Granted on such connections I cannot access chat, or connect with other players whatsoever. I can however engage in any content that doesn't require other players to be present. Which as it turns out, is a great deal of the game. I suspect this isn't a big selling point for most players, but it is something I personally appreciate very much.

The other big thing that affects a much larger portion of the player base, is how updates work. I'm speaking about our ability to continue doing whatever we were doing in game freely until an update is actually live, then simply restart our client to update our game. Now imagine if Warframe actually kicked everyone off and became unplayable for varying amounts of time, every time we had a hotfix... It's easy to overlook this when thinking of other games, as they tend to do the rarer, but much larger updates, meaning this is rarely interrupting much of any single players play time, and is far far easier to schedule and notify players about in advance. At the very least I suspect our Eidolon hunting enthusiasts would not enjoy the far far more frequent interruptions to their night cycles. Ultimately I suspect this is something we could all get used to, but it's also something I believe most players very quickly start to take for granted, and don't realize just how much of a convenience this really is.

Sever based connections aren't all sunshine and roses either. Aside from the costs, there's the fact that the server's performance dictates a players connection quality regardless if the player has a flawless connection. It may not be common these days, but I have certainly played games at times when there was server trouble resulting in the game behaving as if I had 700+ ping. It is not fun, and it's something that there is no player side workaround. You cannot simply avoid public games (this would affect solo play), or just group with friends you have stable connections with. And while it's not common, it would almost certainly crop up from time to time.

That said, server based connections have a great deal of pros, and as most of us know, P2P has all kinds of issues.  Of course it's not black and white with servers being superior to P2P in every way. While I think it's fine to wish for server based Warframe, I doubt it's ever going to be a thing, and hopefully people can appreciate some of the benefits we do get from it.

[SneakyErvin]

4 hours ago, FashionFrame said:

Doesn't mean all of them play at once you know. Steam alone shows this.

https://steamcharts.com/app/230410

Yeah there's other platforms, but say they all have those same numbers, that's still a FRACTION of how many people are registered. Just because it says "Hey that's how many accounts are made" doesn't mean they all play the game still.

Those are always concurrent users. Right now there are close to 90k online through steam, which means you need to add in the stand alone people aswell, plus 2 other platforms. Out of 36m registered users that is far more than a fraction. And these numbers are fairly steady throughout the day, meaning it has alot of active players around the clock.

[iuki.]

I would pay a monthly fee for dedicated servers.

Just like I do in other MMOs that have them.

Just putting that out there.

Edited August 9, 2018 by iuki.

[FashionFrame]

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Those are always concurrent users. Right now there are close to 90k online through steam, which means you need to add in the stand alone people aswell, plus 2 other platforms. Out of 36m registered users that is far more than a fraction. And these numbers are fairly steady throughout the day, meaning it has alot of active players around the clock.

Alright so lets double 90k to 180k, and then add to those other platforms: ps4, xbox one, and say they also have 180k players. Still not even a million, compared to 36million, that's definitely a fraction of players. Just saying.

[iuki.]

2 hours ago, TinFoilMkIV said:

Now imagine if Warframe actually kicked everyone off and became unplayable for varying amounts of time, every time we had a hotfix...

GW2 uses dedicated servers. They also operate on a F2P model. And when there is updates, the servers do not go down it is the same as wf, kick to launch client > dl update > get back into game right after; zero server down time due to mega server tech. I don't buy that excuse.

I will never like P2P match making: it saves the company a ton of money but at the expense of user experience, which is never good.

Usually lag and or loss of connections to the mission among other things. Meh.

Edited August 9, 2018 by iuki.

[TinFoilMkIV]

14 minutes ago, iuki. said:

GW2 uses dedicated servers. They also operate on a F2P model. And when there is updates, the servers do not go down it is the same as wf, kick to launch client > dl update > get back into game right after; zero server down time due to mega server tech. I don't buy that excuse.

I will never like P2P match making: it saves the company a ton of money but at the expense of user experience, which is never good.

Usually lag and or loss of connections to the mission among other things. Meh.

I wasn't aware that was a thing. I accept being wrong about that. Though when you say "kick to launch client", do you mean you get forced out of the game briefly? If so Warframe does have a bit of an advantage with the restart being at your leisure, and not forcibly interrupting long activities.

Sounds like you have particularly bad experiences with P2P, which is gonna happen, so understandable. And I do believe that if we could just flip a switch, that dedicated servers would indeed be an improvement. Unfortunately it's nowhere near that simple. the only way I'd see DE going that way for the full game would be if they were actually building a new game, like a sequel. Which I don't think is happening any time soon.

[iuki.]

Bad experiences....like the last 2 ESOs where a host migration happened and everyone who was left got kicked back to liset thus losing all progress made? So yea, those bad experiences happen on a regular basis.

Edited August 9, 2018 by iuki.

[peterc3]

29 minutes ago, iuki. said:

GW2 uses dedicated servers. They also operate on a F2P model.

There is also a guaranteed buy in to play the game. Warframe is fully free to download and play.

7 minutes ago, iuki. said:

Bad experiences....like the last 2 ESOs where a host migration happened and everyone who was left got kicked back to liset thus losing all progress made? So yea, those bad experiences happen on a regular basis.

Would these things be guaranteed not to happen with dedicated servers?

[iuki.]

8 hours ago, DishSoap said:

People are actually defending P2P over dedicated servers. Oh man, the forums really are "that bad".

I will leave this quote as my last post here.

It's mind boggling.

Edited August 9, 2018 by iuki.