They explain why it is not like D1.Isn't that more or less the same setup D1 and some of the recently CoD's has?
Destiny 1 the host is one of the players.I am not sure what that guy is saying and I read it three times.
Is it the same system as Destiny 1? Are they saying the dedicated server is for your save file?
Destiny 2 uses a hybrid of client-server and peer-to-peer technology, just like Destiny 1.
Destiny 2 moved the host to server while Destiny 1 had one player being the host... so that is the difference.Just like Destiny 1? So nothing has changed?
Is this just spin? I don't quite get what these guys are talking about. At least from the quotes in the OP. Will read full thing when I get home, I guess
Just like Destiny 1? So nothing has changed?
Is this just spin? I don't quite get what these guys are talking about. At least from the quotes in the OP. Will read full thing when I get home, I guess
They explain why it is not like D1.
"Every activity in Destiny 2 is hosted by one of our servers."
In Destiny every activity was hosted by a player.
Yes.Wait a minute, even patrols?
Bungie has a consistent track record of omission, misinformation, and obvious PR spin with their public messaging in Destiny. I don't doubt that their claims here regarding the increased network stability in Destiny 2 will probably be proven true, but I do think it's extremely convenient that this admission is occurring just long enough after the 4v4 global PVP limit announcement to divorce any immediate connection between the two.
Did Bungie reference the power of the could? I'm pretty sure they did and not a single person freaked out or mocked them for it.
Again.So what exactly is the difference from Destiny 1 PvP?
Host migration issues being resolved but everything else staying the same?
Again.
In Destiny 1 PVP (or any other activity) one of the players is choose to be the host of that activity.
In Destiny 2 PVP (or any other activity) the server is the host of that activity.
Because anything using a server hosted on internet is called cloud.Did Bungie reference the power of the could? I'm pretty sure they did and not a single person freaked out or mocked them for it.
It is that simple... if it will work better or not we will need to see but at least go back orbit to change host ended.I'm willing to bet 99 percent of my net worth it won't end up being that simple.
Was host migration a big issue?Again.
In Destiny 1 PVP (or any other activity) one of the players is choose to be the host of that activity.
In Destiny 2 PVP (or any other activity) the server is the host of that activity.
Was host migration a big issue?
I don't think I've ever seen that happen in my time with Destiny, in any activity. Not that I noticed anyway.
The only weirdness I'd see in PvE was super long loads when transitioning areas (when riding a sparrow between two zones). And in PvP lag was my main problem, along with balance issues.
Matt: We think those controller-throwing lag-induced moments will be reduced for Destiny 2, but we can't promise they'll be eliminated. Fundamentally, we are trying to strike a balance between three hard problems: (1) make the game feel responsive, (2) make the game accessible to players all over the world, and (3) make the game fair for all. We'll continue to refine that balance as players engage with the Crucible in Destiny 2.
I was completely wrong about the timing on that information release, you're right. I don't think it invalidates my claim that the latest messaging is obfuscating the facts about the benefits of this network infrastructure choice though.So a week? What about the earlier announcement and thread we had about this exact topic only a few days after the event?
The trend of no dedicated servers continue. It sucks. Devs are just cutting costs, P2P is so dependent on the host's connexion it's just not worth it.
Well it is a know issue with Destiny that host affect the overall connection of the team.Was host migration a big issue?
I don't think I've ever seen that happen in my time with Destiny, in any activity.
Music to my ears. Will be interesting to see if they really have something substantial in place for those that try to risk it.We have a variety of top-secret strategies to ensure that the life of a cheater in Destiny 2 PC will be nasty, brutish, and short.
This is interesting. So more server side than D1. Wonder how much difference that will make.That means you will never again suffer a host migration during your Raid attempt or Trials match. This differs from Destiny 1, where these hosting duties were performed by player consoles and only script and mission logic ran in the data center.
This allows us to give players the feeling of immediacy in all their moving and shooting – no matter where they live and no matter whom they choose to play with.
Not the first point.None of the "three hard problems" mentioned here justify the decision to go with a P2P hybrid over pure dedicated servers; all three can (and have been) solved equally or better by games that use a dedicated server infrastructure. I don't personally care, I'll buy Destiny 2 (maybe even double dip on PS4 and PC) and enjoy it, but the doublespeak in the Bungie messaging along with the readiness of fans to ignore and/or defend it is mildly infuriating.
Wait a minute, even patrols?
I'm optimist and Bungie doesn't seem like they are fucking around with Cheaters unlike Massive did with The Division, so hopefully the first time they get caught its a permanent ban.
Q: Why peer-to-peer? Are we trying to save money?
A: Matt: Nope! We've invested heavily in new server infrastructure for Destiny 2, including using cloud servers for gameplay for the first time. We really believe this is the best model for all of Destiny 2's varied cooperative and competitive experiences. Engineering will always involve tradeoffs and cost-benefit analysis, but as a team we've got no regrets about the unique technology we've built for Destiny 2.
Superior God Master Classes can't be bannedIf Bungie was serious about cheaters then they'd ban all the Warlocks.
Yet most gamers won't fix their routers and get SQM, your no better.
SQM is a practical real fix with real results and expecting devs to properly do dedicated servers and maintain them for a few years is just unrealistic.
Nah. Hunters banned first for all those Golden Gun through the wall shots!If Bungie was serious about cheaters then they'd ban all the Warlocks.
I'd be ok if they dropped pvp and focused on pve. At least they wouldn't have deal with all these complaints. I enjoy the pvp on occasion but it's not what I come to destiny for.
Nah. Hunters banned first for all those Golden Gun through the wall shots!
So much spin you could market it as a focus aid and sell it to a middle-schooler. It's complete bullshit of course.
Did Bungie reference the power of the could? I'm pretty sure they did and not a single person freaked out or mocked them for it.
Just about 3 months ago we had the For Honor devs telling us how their networking technology was this never before seen P2P implementation and how it was so good and what not. And of course, we know how that turned out (exactly as predicted).
Now you have Bungie trying the same thing. Telling us how client authoritative anything in multiplayer is a good idea. This will also turn out exactly the same way as every other P2P implementation has turned out. You either have dedicated servers or you don't. There is nothing in between.
For Honor Devs said:"Theres been a lot of discussion around dedicated servers vs P2P. Can you talk through the decision there?
JV: One thing that is not entirely clear to people is that we dont actually have a traditional peer to peer architecture. We have a new type of architecture that, while its sort of based on a peer to peer philosophy, is actually there in order for us to do this game with eight players active simultaneously and then these two hundred AI running at the same time.
We were thinking about what to call it, but it isnt actually traditional peer to peer.
A lot of the complaints that Im seeing online, not all of them but a lot of them, are actually just lag issues that have to do with normal network states.
That said, the game is built on that framework because without that framework there wouldnt be a game. We wouldnt be running the way that we are right now. I wish I could go into more detail.
At this point, it seems to be working the way that we anticipated. Im not terribly concerned about the problem right now, but were going to continue to look at the needs of the player base as we move forward.
I think theres often a sense within the community to read something off a spec sheet and then decide based on that whether something is good or bad, but then the implementation of that spec is often the far more important aspect of it. It sounds like your implementation of P2P ultimately is one that youre happy with, even if on the sheet it technically says P2P.
JV: Yeah, we run on a thing called the simulation. The way that our network system is built is that its built around everything being 100% fair. So what youre seeing is what Im seeing at the same time, theres no visual advantage in the game.
Theres no host advantage?
JV: Theres no host advantage. This is the part that is not well understood because our technology has not been used in the wild before on other games. Weve been using it all along, but its not something the audience is familiar with.
In our peer to peer solution its not really peer to peer, its based on that.
There was this moment that was really important. Six or eight months into development I had this moment where these engineers came to me and said, So, you want to do eight players running over a network and you wan to do that with two hundred AI, over a normal internet connection? This is your pitch?
I said, Yes.
They say, Thats impossible. I dont know if you understand how networks work designer boy but that cant be done.
Fortunately I work with these incredibly bright bulbs...and they come back a couple of months later with this thing called a simulation and they took a bunch of white papers for Siggraph which they assembled it into this new way of doing networking code, but when communicating it as a peer to peer model the problems with the other implementations kind of scare people, which is perfectly reasonable.