-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
It's 2017. So why the hell does For Honor not have dedicated servers?
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Lana Del Rey
Banned
TroicaBlur
Member
It's 2017. Why the hell does money not grow on trees?
We can, but at the same time you make blatant statements and shut down criticism like it's your baby and it can't be doing anything wrong.
If p2p is so good why even bother with ranked dedicated servers even? There surely must be a reason?
And there is a security issue as each player connect you can see their WAN address and each player you meet will have different ping to each other, how it affects gameplay is unsure but the avg tickrate is 43Hz it seems and the delay between 2 computers with a 1ms delay to each other have around ~100ms during gameplay.
The preliminary report does talk about the good, bad and ugly with more in depth look on it to come.
I never said p2p was perfect, I said people make it out to be a bigger deal than it really is. I will always prefer peer to peer for 1 v 1s (the mode i always play).. that goes for any fighting game. I know people experience lag / network drops in 4 v 4.. never denied that... and i even said they'll most likely transition into dedicated servers in the future like rainbow six siege did. I guess the reading comprehension skills must be missing.
You never said it was perfect but you said it was better than dedicated. It's really not.
http://youtu.be/38sPNZ8QHO4?a
It is though for 1 v 1. I've seen the link already. The chances that you'll run into someone who actually lag switches are slim to none. In the hundreds of matches I've played, I haven't experienced anyone get my IP, lag switch, etc.. The disconnections he faces I've never had, so I can't speak on that matter. Like I said dozens of times in this thread, do I prefer dedicated servers for 4 v 4s? Yea I do. For 1 v 1s and possibly 2s, i prefer peer to peer.
Interesting because I'm already Rep 4 on my PK and I have NEVER encountered any of those issue's to where the dude/girl was porting constantly.
Woo-Fu
Banned
Why would you assume host advantage isn't something that can be dealt with by the software?
Muchi Muchi Pink
Member
Because it doesn't matter what year it is.
Activision does not care either way, and why should they. They are not their own consumers.
crazepharmacist
Member
They're your two favorite because you fall under both categories.
Mysterious Stranger
Member
Because Ubisoft like money and being lazy.
Saucycarpdog
Member
Quite an accusation. Care to prove it? I'll be waiting.
Drillary Clinton
Banned
The servers may be shit but at least the microtransactions work swimmingly!
spindoctor
Member
All your argumentative and condescending posts indicate otherwise.
MajinSweet4
Member
If you and another player don't have a good connection to each other, for whatever reason, dedicated servers are not going to magically fix that.
The problem isn't what's in the sauce it wether it tastes good or not, that's why people "still buy". Who cares wether it's dedicated servers or P2P, what people care about is a smooth experience.
You can get a shitty experience with P2P and you can also get a shitty experience with dedicated servers.
Both can be crapped up. Both can work very well. There isn't one that's a magical solution.
For some reason you guys get hung up on the fact that in P2P another person can be "responsible" for your lag. But what difference does it make, with servers, if this same person with shitty connection is still playing with you, you'll see someone teleport around the place and you won't be able to hit him and you'll take random damage after the facts.
Also sometimes servers themselves can get bugged or laggy, and everyone will experience it, and the game state will get screwed from time to time (rocket league had heaps of that on its dedicated servers)
I've had bad experiences in both P2P and dedicated servers and also flawless experiences with both.
If you're having issues playing For Honor, of course you should complain, but don't make this about the tech choice like one is obviously right and flawless and superior and the other is plain bad.
no
ur wrong
internet says dedicated servers is always SUPERIOR !!! how could it not be, since it's DEDICATED !
You can get a shitty experience with P2P and you can also get a shitty experience with dedicated servers.
Both can be crapped up. Both can work very well. There isn't one that's a magical solution.
For some reason you guys get hung up on the fact that in P2P another person can be "responsible" for your lag. But what difference does it make, with servers, if this same person with shitty connection is still playing with you, you'll see someone teleport around the place and you won't be able to hit him and you'll take random damage after the facts.
Also sometimes servers themselves can get bugged or laggy, and everyone will experience it, and the game state will get screwed from time to time (rocket league had heaps of that on its dedicated servers)
I've had bad experiences in both P2P and dedicated servers and also flawless experiences with both.
If you're having issues playing For Honor, of course you should complain, but don't make this about the tech choice like one is obviously right and flawless and superior and the other is plain bad.
no
ur wrong
internet says dedicated servers is always SUPERIOR !!! how could it not be, since it's DEDICATED !
ethomaz
Banned
I guess you are missing the point a bit...
You have 2 ways to do multiplayer: Dedicated servers or P2P.
1. Dedicated servers: the host is the dedicated server and everything is calculated by it using the data sent by the players that are connected to that server... each Multiplayer match open a session in that server... more users = you need more hardware to hold all these sessions... one server is not enough to hold 100k sessions for example... there is a limit for each server based in how much memory, CPU, internet bandwidth the server needs to run the game logic for all the sessions... so you need more servers... a cluster of servers... that is expensive because you need to buy (or rent) the hardware, have a big internet link to hold all communication with players for all servers, and possible localized servers because people on Brasil can't play with people on Japan due lag... so you have a lot of dedicated servers in each region.
That costs a lot.
2. P2P: You have one only big server that do matchmaking after that one of the players is the host and the rest of session is connected to it... matchmaking is a non-issue because you don't rely on lag (the player will wait some seconds the matchmaking be done) and it uses really low memory, processing and internet bandwidth... you can have over 1 million users connect to only one server for matchmaking. After you have your P2P host all the data in between the players in the session, so nothing is used in the matchmaking server... the players of the session is connected to a close host player (Brasil players mainly plays against Brasil players and in worst case somebody from US or EU that is close than Japan) and the lag is low (unless a players has shit internet)... the internet use is from the host/players and any 5Mbps connect can hold a multilayer session or even lower... the infrastructure to hold the session rely on player (his console/PC, his internet, etc).
The cost is really low because except for the matchmaking everything happens in the player host.
Now you can compared a cluster of servers distributed across regions vs one single server for matchmaking.
P2P is a hell of cheaper... like millions $ vs thousand $.
BTW P2P with players with good connection is better than Dedicated Server... P2P you directly connect to your opponent... Dedicated Server everybody needs to pass-trough the data to server... that add delay/lag to all players.
Actually in modern world with good internet data plans P2P is a superior tech for multiplayer.
Connecting to a server masterlist has been a thing for a very long time. I don't see why this would be impossible to implement with matchmaking.
P2P model trusts the client which immediately puts it far far far far lower on the totem pole vs. dedicated servers.
ethomaz
Banned
Just a bit more...
If you are thinking the change to Dedicated Server will make you multiplayer life better than P2P then you will be disappointed.
Over 90% of the issues in both Dedicated Servers or P2P is your or other player internet issue.
You won't see difference between P2P or Dedicated Servers if you and all your budies has good internet and are close to each other.
If you are thinking the change to Dedicated Server will make you multiplayer life better than P2P then you will be disappointed.
Over 90% of the issues in both Dedicated Servers or P2P is your or other player internet issue.
You won't see difference between P2P or Dedicated Servers if you and all your budies has good internet and are close to each other.
Network performance is not the only determining factor between either model.
UnemployedVillain
Member
But we're not talking about cheat detection, which is the biggest reason your statement is true for primarily 1v1 games. However, if someone has a shitty connection, there's going to be lag regardless of if it's p2p or server based
SpiceMelange
Member
You're mixing up listen servers and a true p2p network implementation in your second example.
Is saying "Because, it's Ubisoft" enough?
They'll squeeze any penny they can get out of ya. Haven't y'all learned from the past decade of terrible games?
Putting a "Beta" out test 2 days before launch is not a Beta test. The game was already Gold by then. It's a "try to get people hyped" test.
You can't have viable p2p in competitive multiplayer... or else lag switches. Remember Halo 2?
They'll squeeze any penny they can get out of ya. Haven't y'all learned from the past decade of terrible games?
Putting a "Beta" out test 2 days before launch is not a Beta test. The game was already Gold by then. It's a "try to get people hyped" test.
You can't have viable p2p in competitive multiplayer... or else lag switches. Remember Halo 2?
I understand that net perf is one of the most important things, but I'm just saying there is a lot more that goes into the decision. The thread is not just about dedi vs. P2P in regards to latency.
So it's a bad thing that people got to play the game before buying huh? It seems like you are trying to spin the open beta as some type of negative to the consumer.
Also "past decade of terrible games" is really fucking dumb thing to say when you consider their whole library that they have developed in that time period.
He isn't wrong though. Calling it a "beta" test is pretty misleading.
Every AAA studio does this now though, so it's pretty innocuous.
It's not a Beta test, it's a "play a part of the game a little early, for free" test.
And actually, it's a very good thing because I'm sure a ton of people DIDN'T buy the game after trying that garbage. I know a friend who falls into this category.
I was pointing out that calling it a Beta is a complete sham. It's not in Beta state if it comes out in 2 days. The gold disc of the game was already submitted and approved, discs were already printed and shipped to retail, etc.
It's not like they fixed P2P and made it dedicated servers between those times.
SpiceMelange
Member
No, it's a backend scalability test.
Ehhhh I don't know about that. If it's a month before launch, sure. But if it's only like 1-2 weeks out of the actual release, it'd be very difficult to fix issues or spin up new servers (depending on workflow, virtual vs. physical, etc) to make any actual difference.
They can't do anything meaningful in 2 days. They shoulda done this more often, 6+ months ago if they wanted to identify and fix any actual problems (like disconnections and drops, which Im seeing a lot of). It was literally just for hype. Some people never heard of it and like to not look at Let's Plays or reviews, etc, so they can get a few quick uninformed purchases there.
Not to mention P2P in this kind of game is just a bad idea to begin with.
Zombegoast
Member
That's a tiny amount compared to everything pre 2010.
SpiceMelange
Member
6 months for scalability tests? lol
1-2 weeks to hotfix login / master servers bottle necks seems right to me. Spinning up servers in the amazon age don't take much time either.
Why is taking the time to identify and fix potential issues before launch a bad thing?
potatohead
Member
I never had a problem with connections on U4 though. It runs very well online.
Not constant 6 months but a few tests OVER 6 months, yeah. That would've been beta title-worthy. They can't just let everyone in 2 days before the game goes live, identify problems and fix them in 48hrs. Maybe some mem leaks here and there but actual problems? Hell no. It doesn't work like that. Submissions and turn around, identifying the bugs and actually fixing them? That takes time.
SpiceMelange
Member
Scalability tuning is not something that takes 6 months in 2017.
They can't let everyone 2 days before the game goes live sure, but 2 weeks is enough for that kind of testing.
Yeah it's not something you do in 2 days/weeks either. 2 Weeks is not nearly enough. That's not even enough time to get the fix on disc. That's *just* barely enough to get it as a Day 1 Patch, if they rushed through everything else.
http://imgur.com/a/KTpIW
SpiceMelange
Member
It's something you do if your back-end is ready but want to mitigate any day 1 hotfixable problems.
Correct. That would imply their backend was ready. Which it was not. So yea, no, 2 weeks not nearly enough time.
SpiceMelange
Member
Day 1 seems to have been fine? Certainly nothing in the scale of d3's error 37 or the likes.
SpiceMelange
Member
Those aren't scalability issues, but problems inherent from a P2P model.
Similar threads
- Poll