Urizen
N4
Disclaimer: No brain cells were harmed in the making of this post.
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
Origin: 2Holedoll
Posts: 1,182 Likes: 5,521
inherit
124
0
Feb 14, 2024 16:44:48 GMT
5,521
Urizen
Disclaimer: No brain cells were harmed in the making of this post.
1,182
August 2016
urizen
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
2Holedoll
|
Post by Urizen on Mar 18, 2017 12:09:56 GMT
Dedicated servers make perfect sense for a coop game cause you have less lag overall and aren't dependent on the connection of the host. No they don´t. Unless you run several servers on one machine, which at peak time will quickly lead to a shitton of problems on its own, no. Not to mention that you clearly overestimate the bandwidth needed to host a game for no more than 3 players. And thanks to multicores, hardware reqs aren´t that much of an issue either, unless ofc, you run it on a potato, build 5000BC. This isn´t a game that needs equal footing for everyone unlike your games you mention in the second part of your quote. EA of course. Just like Activision is paying for CoD servers, Blizz for the Overwatch servers and EA for the Battlefield servers. If they can integrate microtransactions into a 60$ game, they can pay for MP servers. Wait time in BF1 is already getting quite long, despite finally playerowned dedicated servers showing up. And the wait times in Overwatch, from watching the occasional Twitch stream, is even longer. Publishers are cheap and think that a player having to wait 5 minutes or longer for a game is totally acceptable, thus they pay for the absolute bare minimum. And given that ME3MP and most likely MEAMP too, is and will be something you want to hop in quickly, I can guarantee that most ppl are unwilling to wait 5 mins or longer. I´m a sextoy, ofc I´m ridiculous. Also, see above. Then the game is no longer active. Can be easily solved by outsourcing the server hosting at the end of the lifespan to one of the third-party providers. Means someone has to pay for it, though, so it'd be a community effort. I´m glad that BW decided not to go Dedicated with ME3MP, as I can still play it, thx to its p2p model. Otherwise this game would be dead as fuck right now ( obvious hyperbole is obvious ). NOONE pays if they fear their server is going to be empty 24/7. The netcode seems fine so far. No matter how bad the lag, powers like Charge still work properly. I do agree on the b - seeing your latency to the host. But even more important would be better matchmaking. Put penalties on hosts with bad connections so their lobbies don't fill up and allow players to chose between accepting mediocre connections or waiting longer for a game. They probably already favor hosts closer to the player so we have to wait how that turns out once the playerbase is large enough. Rubberbanding is such an indicator of such a fine netcode, it def doesn´t need improving. Sorry, expecting 0 lag is utter bullshit, but what I´ve seen so far is not an indication of good netcode, quite the opposite in fact. And oh yes, powers seem to go off reliably, great, it doesn´t help though if you are constantly wobbling back and forth and can´t get a bead on the guy you want to charge. But I do like the penalties thing. |
|
inherit
10
0
Aug 30, 2019 23:02:33 GMT
16,068
SalMasRac
Salarian Master Pimp
2,932
August 2016
salmasrac
Mass Effect Trilogy, KOTOR
SalMasRac
PurpGuy
|
Post by SalMasRac on Mar 18, 2017 13:09:43 GMT
Dedicated servers for a coopgame like MEAMP? Makes 0 fucking sense. Period. Who is going to pay for the servers? Will there be enough servers for all? What if there aren´t any at all down the road? The only thing needed is a: better netcode and b: the ability to see your latency in the lobby. Dedicated servers make perfect sense for a coop game cause you have less lag overall and aren't dependent on the connection of the host. EA of course. Just like Activision is paying for CoD servers, Blizz for the Overwatch servers and EA for the Battlefield servers. If they can integrate microtransactions into a 60$ game, they can pay for MP servers. Don't be ridiculous. Then the game is no longer active. Can be easily solved by outsourcing the server hosting at the end of the lifespan to one of the third-party providers. Means someone has to pay for it, though, so it'd be a community effort. The netcode seems fine so far. No matter how bad the lag, powers like Charge still work properly. I do agree on the b - seeing your latency to the host. But even more important would be better matchmaking. Put penalties on hosts with bad connections so their lobbies don't fill up and allow players to chose between accepting mediocre connections or waiting longer for a game. They probably already favor hosts closer to the player so we have to wait how that turns out once the playerbase is large enough. Those are all PvP games, where host advantage would be patently unfair |
|
leafspring
N2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
Posts: 229 Likes: 593
inherit
2340
0
Aug 26, 2018 12:42:30 GMT
593
leafspring
229
December 2016
leafspring
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by leafspring on Mar 18, 2017 14:56:44 GMT
Dedicated servers make perfect sense for a coop game cause you have less lag overall and aren't dependent on the connection of the host. Unless you run several servers on one machine, which at peak time will quickly lead to a shitton of problems on its own, no. Not to mention that you clearly overestimate the bandwidth needed to host a game for no more than 3 players. And thanks to multicores, hardware reqs aren´t that much of an issue either, unless ofc, you run it on a potato, build 5000BC. This isn´t a game that needs equal footing for everyone unlike your games you mention in the second part of your quote. I'll go out on a limb here and assume you have no idea how networking or server infrastructure works based on that first statement of yours. But you're right that a coop game can live with "host advantage" while competitive games cannot. Doesn't change the fact that being reliant on a consumer connection can result in a bad game experience for everyone involved, including the host who's essentially solo'ing if things get really bad. EA of course. Just like Activision is paying for CoD servers, Blizz for the Overwatch servers and EA for the Battlefield servers. If they can integrate microtransactions into a 60$ game, they can pay for MP servers. Wait time in BF1 is already getting quite long, despite finally playerowned dedicated servers showing up. And the wait times in Overwatch, from watching the occasional Twitch stream, is even longer. Publishers are cheap and think that a player having to wait 5 minutes or longer for a game is totally acceptable, thus they pay for the absolute bare minimum. And given that ME3MP and most likely MEAMP too, is and will be something you want to hop in quickly, I can guarantee that most ppl are unwilling to wait 5 mins or longer. Can't speak for BF1 as I don't play it but wait times in Overwatch are perfectly fine. Usually 20 to 30 seconds for me (Central Europe). Which, by the way, has nothing to do with the dedicated servers. It's the match making trying to find the best possible game and willing to wait a while for that. It wouldn't even be a second faster with P2P because games won't appear out of thin air just because the networking model is different. I´m a sextoy, ofc I´m ridiculous. Also, see above. Then the game is no longer active. Can be easily solved by outsourcing the server hosting at the end of the lifespan to one of the third-party providers. Means someone has to pay for it, though, so it'd be a community effort. I´m glad that BW decided not to go Dedicated with ME3MP, as I can still play it, thx to its p2p model. Otherwise this game would be dead as fuck right now ( obvious hyperbole is obvious ). NOONE pays if they fear their server is going to be empty 24/7. I can certainly agree to that. Longevity is an issue with dedicated servers - which is why a company that gives at least somewhat of a shit about their customers could easily offer both options. A prime example would be, once again, Overwatch. They rely on dedicated servers where it makes sense and have a fallback p2p mode for regions of the world were proper server infrastructure isn't feasible. The netcode seems fine so far. No matter how bad the lag, powers like Charge still work properly. I do agree on the b - seeing your latency to the host. But even more important would be better matchmaking. Put penalties on hosts with bad connections so their lobbies don't fill up and allow players to chose between accepting mediocre connections or waiting longer for a game. They probably already favor hosts closer to the player so we have to wait how that turns out once the playerbase is large enough. Rubberbanding is such an indicator of such a fine netcode, it def doesn´t need improving. Sorry, expecting 0 lag is utter bullshit, but what I´ve seen so far is not an indication of good netcode, quite the opposite in fact. And oh yes, powers seem to go off reliably, great, it doesn´t help though if you are constantly wobbling back and forth and can´t get a bead on the guy you want to charge. But I do like the penalties thing. Rubberbanding is an indicator that the connection to the host is bad. Powers going off and Charge landing you at the correct spot with a single activation (and within half a second) even in insanely laggy games is an indicator that the netcode is good. But as the word "indicator" says - it's a guess because without actually looking at the code and what exactly is happening we have no way of knowing. |
|
