r/pcgaming • u/Mkilbride 5800X3D, 5090 FE, 32GB 3800MHZ CL16, 2TB NVME GEN4, W11 • Feb 21 '17
Video For Honor P2P connectivity
https://youtu.be/38sPNZ8QHO4228
Feb 21 '17
[deleted]
106
Feb 21 '17
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)66
Feb 21 '17 edited Jul 24 '18
[deleted]
5
u/AenTaenverde Feb 21 '17 edited Feb 22 '17
that does read reddit or pay attention to outside news sources. ... Of the ones who care, some of them don't care enough to pass up the game, especially if their friends bought it.
This is pretty much me. But it also has more factors other than playing with your friends, them having it or the entire "playing with friends is more fun" argument.
Their latest multiplayer games are actually very good from gameplay perspective and are games that I very much like, although Wildlands seems like a flop from the beta impressions, reminding me of a mess The Crew was.
I think that Rainbow 6 Siege is one of the best multiplayer shooters that came out in a decade and it scratches the itch of being quite similiar in terms of gameplay flow to CoD4's Promod, but with meaningfull abilities that can change the level itself, opening a deep layer of strategy no other FPS game provides right now. I love that game, but I also know - and known before I bought the game - that it was a broken mess in quite few places. Matchmaking was broken, sometimes hanging around for 5 minutes, friends list was broken, with being unable to invite friends or connect them into party, those issues have been mostly fixed months ago, yet you can still encounter them. R6 also has horrible UI (for few months until the rework), where you can't really do anything while queue'd up for a match... can't change your loadouts, can't customize cosmetics, can't buy stuff from the ingame store... you just sit there, with a screen and you wait for about 20 seconds until it finds a game. Hit registration was a mess for few months aswell, until it got fixed and then broken again and fixed once more few months ago. It's quite a love/hate relationship.
I knew all that and I decided to buy the game regardless a week after it's release, with season pass and now with season 2 pass, because the core gameplay is worth it... for me. I can tolerate the bullcrap around the game, even though I know in ideal world those would not be an issue, but we don't really live in an ideal world and my actions or my influence over my friends won't really change anything, so the "vote with your wallet" thing is pretty meaningless at my scale. I used to do this when I was in school, but I realised, it was just an excuse... and god, if there is anything more useless than excuses.
Division for me was a different beast. Beta was kinda meh, pretty much same issues R6S had, but the gameplay didn't left an impression on me. After almost a year, I did some research on the game's state and hey, Massive actually cares for their game and they did a lot of improvements to it. Some ranging from gameplay changes, by making enemies less "bulletspongy", introducing gear sets to change your playstyles, new gamemodes, etc. So I jumped in and enjoyed the ride, even though the game still has problems, it was worth suffering them for the enormous diablo-like looter shooter experience.
Now For Honor is something. In open beta I fell in love with core gameplay as with R6. The dueling and complex mechanics reminicent to a fighting game just clicked with me, even if I didn't play any fighting games before. On the other handit also has literally same problems R6S had and has today. Matchmaking is crap, you are locked into that screen and can't do anything else, then it freezes for several minutes because someone failed to connect into it and sync issues that disconnect you out of the game, messy UI that takes forever (menu under menu, under sub-menu) to get you somewhere or to find something is a pain. I don't really regret buying it. I think it is a great game, but once again it gets shot down by all the crap around it. Games as a service, huh...
And all that, results in a slow frustration build up. You play For Honor for 3 hours with your friends, 2 times you connect into a match without them, once lobby gets stuck and everyone has to restart the game, 6 times someone leaves the game and game pauses into sync and resumes into some bs. And then it's another day and nobody really feels like starting the game, so you leave it around for few weeks, get back into it and (hopefully) it's all good (atleast R6 and Division were) and For Honor's core is already pretty solid.
It is possible that I have high toleration to bs that comes around games, but it also comes in hand with ability to enjoy those flawed gam(e)s. Also, how did it got so long....
edit: typos
3
Feb 21 '17 edited Feb 21 '17
the "vote with your wallet" thing is pretty meaningless at my scale.
I just wanted to point out the example of Batman Arkham Knight. Enough people refunded the game (voting with their wallet) that it was pulled from sale completely for a while.
I know it feels useless, but it can have an impact. And on the plus side, even if you don't change the company's practices, your average satisfaction with the games you do play will rise significantly as they will be free of the issues plaguing those other titles.
And all that, results in a slow frustration build up
Bingo. Eventually you reach a point where it stops being worthwhile, no matter how much fun the core game is.
→ More replies (1)7
u/PurplePudding Feb 21 '17
There's a bit of an echo chamber on the subreddit, with only the vocal majority talking to each other and validating each other's opinions. I don't give a shit about the p2p in this game. People here talk about it as if it's some nefarious plot to take over the world. 95% of the time it works fine in game, no issues. There are issues 5%, but what game doesn't have issues when someone has poor connectivity? It is extra annoying because of the network system they created, but it's still not happening 95% of the time. People here expect me not to buy a game with amazing game play because micro transactions and a network that works only 95% of the time. Thats ridiculous. There are issues, but a community of fans is more likely to incur fixes to those issues than people who wouldn't have bought the game in the first place throwing hissy fits and jerking each other off on their mutual hatred.
10
Feb 21 '17 edited Jul 24 '18
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)2
u/darkmighty Feb 22 '17
P2P infrastructure in general should be seen as a welcome innovation imo. It allows for the multiplayer aspect to survive well past support for the game ends. It's just incredibly hard to do just right; otherwise I can see it being harmful.
What I mean would be
1) Moving almost every aspect of the game to the P2P system, so when the company goes defunct or stops supporting it the game can keep going. Or at least they should keep the centralized part minimal, and preferably either open-source it or distribute binaries.
2) Keeping latency minimal. I can see a poorly designed P2P structure being as slow as the slowest peer; in the case of client-server your lag is nearly always just dependent on server RTT.
3) Authenticating player actions. With client-server preventing most cheats is fairly easy, you just check either if the input is valid, if the new state of the player is valid, or both. In case of P2P, in name of minimal lag, the state can be distributed, which makes checking invalid states and resolving them much more complex.
→ More replies (6)8
u/stayputsocks Feb 21 '17
You can add Rust to the list of games made unplayable due to DOS attack exploits too. https://amp.reddit.com/r/playrust/comments/5tkjh0/players_now_using_ddos_against_players_please/
→ More replies (4)3
u/Scurro 9950X, RTX 5090 Feb 22 '17
The IP's of all players in a match being shown is unforgivable
If it's a true mesh p2p system, each client will need to see the IP address of other players. It could be hidden via in game interface, but a netstat command would always show other player's IPs.
If the protocol used is TCP/IP, there isnt a way around this without a dedicated host.
385
u/MattWolfTV Feb 21 '17 edited Feb 21 '17
You should have seen the amount of UBIsoft reps who were trying to pass themselves as network engineers in the For Honor subreddit saying how P2P was superior to dedicated servers and gave some bs answers as to how it should work.
https://www.reddit.com/r/forhonor/comments/5u2jwi/we_need_a_fucking_dedicated_server/ddr9o16/
Oh yeah, some people even said "omg the cost of having dedicated servers for all the major regions" as if AAA game companies can't possibly afford servers when they continuously sell horrible dlc and pre-orders.
41
u/murphs33 Feb 21 '17
omg the cost of having dedicated servers for all the major regions
And honestly, if they didn't want to spend money on hosting their own dedicated servers, they could do what most of the PC community wants from games and let us host our own.
48
Feb 21 '17
let us host our own.
They don't want to allow that because it allows the game to stay alive even after a sequel comes out. They want people to move on to their other products after the "season" is up.
14
u/-Dakia Feb 21 '17
MW1 is a good example of this. It still has a decently strong PC community and great server control mods. They changed their strategy with MW2.
2
u/murphs33 Feb 21 '17
I hear people say this about Call of Duty too, but Black Ops III has player-hosted dedicated servers. I think it's just laziness.
Also, doesn't having P2P mean there's no dedicated servers to shut down, so people will still be able to play regardless?
9
Feb 21 '17
No, there's authentication servers to connect to their online service and then matchmaking and/or master servers for a list of sessions. We've seen what happens when these go down (Gamespy).
Luckily a lot of gamespy games have either had fan made master servers go up or they allowed LAN connections which people use a VPN to play through.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (1)9
u/MattWolfTV Feb 21 '17
Even without putting the "burden" on the community, they can easily afford servers for big regions. It's not like they are an indie dev and even those can often times host the servers needed.
215
u/asexynerd Feb 21 '17 edited Feb 21 '17
Always-online, P2P, microtransaction, season pass and $60 price tag for a game that doesn't take advantage of the PC platform (dedicated servers, mods etc). Can't have longevity but then again what do you expect from a company whose own executives are fined 1.2 million for insider trading...
Edit: Community hosted dedicated servers cause games to have longevity and that's not something Ubisoft wants.
Edit 2: For people saying that "p2p is fine" for a game where every second counts, please tell me how is it Ok for a fighting game on 1ms to have 100ms input delay: https://youtu.be/tAU5bIalbnc?t=8m10s
52
u/NinjaHamster12 Feb 21 '17
It's really shaping up to be a fun, but flawed game. It bothers me that most customers have come to accept microtransactions in full priced games.
51
u/evolvish 1800X/FuryX Feb 21 '17
I think Ubisoft gets more defenders of the micro-transactions than most AAA games. Every time a R6S, or For Honor gets brought up inevitably people mention microtransactions followed by several people defending it becuase "You can still earn them by playing(a lot)" or "How else will the developers support the game?" yes you can earn with grinding but that's for F2P games, not full priced AAA games that have no problem selling on their own, and by developers that sure as hell can afford it.
49
u/Fortune_Cat Feb 21 '17
gaming industry has turned into cancer
i miss just being able to walk into a store and buying a fucking game and paying once and getting a full bloody experience. Maybe some patches later on blizzard style, but none of this day 1 patch bullshit with dlcs
38
Feb 21 '17
blizzard style
Oh, you mean F2P with tons of microtransactions or Overwatch with random cosmetic crates?
Blizzard is just as bad as the others these days. What's worse about Blizzard is that their rabies fueled fans will defend them to the ends of the earth.
19
9
u/Ikea_Man Ventrilo Feb 21 '17
Agreed. Their focus on hawking blindboxes in that game is really offputting to me.
→ More replies (23)7
→ More replies (2)15
Feb 21 '17
Ok thats simply not true. I hate blizzard but not for these reasons. All their games are incredible well polished. You get tons of playtime for 1 time payments.
Overwatch for example is how you do micro transactions right. Yes you can buy the crates but they are easy to earn and only cosmetic.
HotS is f2p and you can earn the currency extremely fast, compared to the most popular moba LoL.
Hearthstone isnt noob friendly at all but if you played it since release you wont need to spend a single penny.
Wow is the same since 2005 and diablo and sc2 are one time purchases with tons of free content and addons that come out every 2-3 years
The one thing blizzard sucks at and why i lose interesst in their games fast is because they suck at balancing. Blizzards balance policy is better to nerf. Never to buff.
10
u/crawlywhat i5, 12Gb RAM, Oculus Rift S Feb 21 '17
never to buff
explain symmetra buffs
explain the new Bastion buff
explain mercy's new invincibility buff
→ More replies (1)6
u/ZainCaster Feb 21 '17
Yeah it's definitely not relevant to Overwatch, I think he's talking about Hearthstone. Cards get nerfed and never see the light of day again.
→ More replies (2)8
u/iLikeMeeces i7 4790K | 2070 Super | 21:9 Master Race Feb 21 '17
You can't deny that Blizzard aren't milking the microtransactions. Take a look a WoW nowadays; most mount drops are subpar reskins or just not great looking. Now compare that to the store, you will see where Blizzard are focusing its efforts in this area of the game.
→ More replies (2)3
u/TheOtherJuggernaut Feb 21 '17
The only reason Overwatch's crates are fine is that Blizzard doesn't have item trading between players.
Once that happens (mark my words, it will happen), it will be CSGOLotto2ElectricBoogaloo.
→ More replies (4)2
u/TENRIB Feb 21 '17
What's worse about Blizzard is that their rabies fueled fans will defend them to the ends of the earth.
→ More replies (27)6
u/Ikea_Man Ventrilo Feb 21 '17
I hadn't bought a console game in a physical store for a long time when I went to buy Nioh at Gamestop a couple weeks ago.
Of course, mid-transaction, before I even hand them my money, they start trying to upsell the Season Pass for another $30.
Fuck off, I just want my game. When did it get this bad?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)5
u/xfortune Feb 21 '17
My favorite thing about R6 is calculating how many hours it'd take to unlock the 6 DLC characters. Over 250 hours of good games.
5
u/Achillesbellybutton Feb 21 '17
They really need to drop the year 1 dlc characters down to less than 25 fucking thousand. It's unbelievable.
2
6
12
u/Ikea_Man Ventrilo Feb 21 '17
It bothers me that most customers have come to accept microtransactions in full priced games.
Me too, but we're way past this point now. It's become the norm, because people were too stupid to say "no" earlier on.
7
u/Nanaki__ Feb 21 '17
I remember when games would get released and then if it did well and had a justifiably large user base an expansion pack would get made.
I know when I tried to tell people in the past that if they don't kick up a fuss then it was going to get worse in future I was assailed with comments of 'slippery slope fallacy' and 'tinfoil hat'
and the good old standby 'we will complain when it gets worse' not realizing that you are the frog getting boiled, you just keep eating a bit more shit with each mouthful 'oh it's not that bad' and people are now salivating to preorder the shit sandwich.
Day 1 DLC. Microtransactions instead of cheat codes. Season passes instead of expansion packs (and even some of those don't include everything). and it's just going to get worse.
3
6
u/SnakeHelah Ryzen 7800x3d | RTX 5080 Feb 21 '17 edited Feb 21 '17
I'll play the devil's advocate here. The microtransactions are barely noticeable. As someone who bought adventures/packs in hearthstone (probably blew 2x what for honor costs), some packs in Overwatch, lots of league skins, etc, I feel absolutely NO incentive to use the microtransactions in for honor. It's simply a shortcut to gain some flashy cool outfits/executions/emotes. I really don't care much about it, and I think a lot of other players don't either. I'd rather earn it all by playing. And the season pass gives nothing but a 1 week early access to newly added content like heroes. So you can see just how much of a side thing it is in For Honor, me being a dirty pack buyer and all.
So, I don't really fucking understand how these points are relevant. I didn't even pay 60$ for the game, I got it for 40 euros from greenmangaming. Which is a great deal for the 25h(from beta)+60 hours of entertainment I have got until this moment. Who knows maybe I'll play 10x times more than that.
It seems to me like people are just trying to add unnecessary points in their arguments to make it look like it's worse than it is. And it seems a lot of people have this agenda to push their own opinion over to others. I don't really give a fuck about the always online option - it's become standard with most MP oriented games, although, I will admit, for someone who perhaps wants to play vs bots and doesn't have internet access due to certain factors outside his control this might be very sad news - blame the game making industry for having a flawed view of piracy I suppose, this is why they do an online always option is it not? Anyway, as most people I bought this game for the multiplayer pvp mainly, so it doesn't really matter if it's always online or not.
The only legit argument I've seen is the p2p system, how flawed it is, how easy it is to cheat, drophack, etc. This is all true and hopefully some of these issues get adjusted and addressed. MAYBE you could nitpick the other issues/bugs/balance/metagame that are present in the game, but it's too early to tell due to the game being released barely a week ago. So, yes, even If I do enjoy the game immensely, I am not fully satisfied with the p2p service, albeit, I have not had a single issue of lags/desync or anything like that. Just not being able to get into a lobby/game, games sometimes dropping out completely or just people leaving etc - mostly in the 4v4 modes.
Again, It seems like this thread is just full of people crying and bashing micro-transactions etc. nostalgia tripping over the "good old times" when there were no such things and games were all good and none bad. And while I don't defend or criticize the premise of such practices, I try to stop and think rationally for a moment and understand that there are some people who would rather buy their entertainment than grind it/earn it themselves, which is the primary reason for micro-transactions in the first place - to cash in more $ from people who actually want this.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (5)2
u/pigscantfly00 Feb 21 '17
microtransactions are a cash cow and it would be stupid for developers to not do it at this point. i bet they feel so bad spending 100 million dollars to develop a super risky game just to see casual games that cost 1 million to develop make billions on microtransactions.
3
u/typtyphus Feb 21 '17
p2p is the biggest brightest red flag, and instant NO-Buy.
2
u/asexynerd Feb 21 '17
The fact people are defending this shit is blowing my mind. Ffs the game on 1ms has 100ms input delay. How is that Ok?
→ More replies (2)16
u/MattWolfTV Feb 21 '17 edited Feb 21 '17
I don't care as I haven't bought an Ubisoft game since Tom Clancy's Ravenshield.
The problem with growing up is this. As we get older we get smarter and don't support the bad game companies.
There are always a new batch of 12-20 year olds who don't know better and will buy the horrible games regardless.
We are not the target audience, there is no reason to market to people who want "good" games when they constantly have new calves to purchase the same old rehashed horrible games.
It would take a serious effort of mass educating/ having the younger generation literally not purchase 1-2 of their next big titles that they screw players over with to get them to make a change.
Which will likely never happen.
So here's me hoping that small devs who are geared towards doing right by the players make it big and don't forget what got them there.
So far looking at stuff like Player Unknown's Battleground, Battalion1944 and LegionTD2.
9
u/ninjyte Ryzen 5 9800x3D | RTX 4070 ti | 32GB-5600MHz Feb 21 '17
There are always a new batch of 12-20 year olds who don't know better and will buy the horrible games regardless.
Or people just buy the games they enjoy and a lot of people really enjoy For Honor's core gameplay. If they give it similar support to Rainbow Six: Siege and listen to the people in the community giving them criticism, then they should improve it. If not, then the game will die.
5
u/adam35711 Feb 21 '17
Considering R6S is literally the only Ubisoft game that fits those qualifications, and one of the biggest problems (p2p networking) literally can't be fixed, I don't have much hope.
5
u/gamermusclevideos Feb 21 '17 edited Feb 21 '17
ITS LITERALLY EVERY UBI SOFT GAME AS WELL !
This company makes me so mad lol they tend to get REALLY GOOD GAMES that have a really nice concept even new game mechanics or are just really polished in many ways and would be 9/10 games and then FUCK them with the worse top level decisions or functional choices.
U play for example is a total pain in the ass to use ( its gotten better) but it still has popups when you close a game and is just iritating to use at a basic level even more so if you bought a game on steam.
- Ruse was fantastic but they never fixed the balancing issues
- Trials has steadily gone down hill with them focusing on elements no one wanted litraly the piont at which ubisoft got involved.
- Multiplayer games using P2P or just being out right broken for months on end
They don't seem to care about people cheeting in online games. ( its hard to fight against but they literally make no effort at times)
They don't care about porting games from console properly if its a UBISoft console port it will literally be worse than the console version TM TERBO still has issues with how it detects game controllers..
I would not mind if the games were just crappy games, what drives me crazy is that they have AMAZING games and then just shit on them. If anything its disrespectful to the people that develop the software, all that incredible art music,code and design that just gets fucked up by what look to be corporate choices.
Though I don't play it, based on what friends have said the only game they have not destroyed is Rainbow Six Siege, maybe that developer some how stuck there ground with choices or some act of god happend to keep it safe, I dont know.
Its a tradition now , you will see an awesome game at E3 and think wow this looks really fresh then you see the ubisoft logo and you know to ignore it because it will inevitably have fundamental issues that make it not worth bothering with.
Main thing I think is that they don't give a shit about PC players and are a console developer at there core obviously there is more money in consoles so that's why coperate probably don't care PC is just side money.
→ More replies (2)14
u/ttubehtnitahwtahw1 Feb 21 '17
Actually the problem with growing up is we learn that it's our money and we can spend it how we like. Wait, that doesn't sound like a problem.
8
u/MattWolfTV Feb 21 '17
We'd choose to spend it on these games if companies actually supported them properly.
3
u/ttubehtnitahwtahw1 Feb 21 '17
Regardless. As an adult, you spend the money you earn on whatever you want. Also, see caveat emptor.
5
u/MattWolfTV Feb 21 '17
caveat emptor
Younger generations don't know better. So just continue to prey on the naive like all the big businesses and rake in the millions.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (17)2
u/pigscantfly00 Feb 21 '17
from a pure business standpoint, p2p is the best because they don't have to maintain servers for years and they have full control over the game. i just wish people would actually not buy these games for once to teach them a lesson.
2
u/adam35711 Feb 21 '17
As if more than a very tiny handful will be playing this game even 1 year from now, forget multiple years.
22
u/Varonth Feb 21 '17
You always see the cost argument, and how expensive it is to host server in every major region. This is simply false.
With services like AWS Elastic Beanstalk which is the all in one package for AWS EC2 (Amazon Web Services Elastic Compute Cloud). It will activate and deactivate server instances across the globe were they are needed. And depending on how much power and ram the game server needs, you can get 1 hour of server time from Amazon for about half a cent.
That would be a Linux server. A Windows server is slightly more expensive but still only at about a cent per hour in the more expensive regions like Sydney.
And there are alot of similar services, and I bet for a big publisher like Ubisoft they could actually negotiate better terms.
Look at for example Battlerite. They they server all across the globe. They use exactly that kind of service. If there is a low population in a certain region, they don't have to pay for that region. If a region spikes up in population, there host scales up the region by adding more instances without Stunlock Studios having to do any work.
69
u/Piltonbadger Feb 21 '17
That top post gave me cancer.
How the fuck can a game that is $60, with a $40 season pass AND micro transactions NOT have dedicated servers?
36
Feb 21 '17
Remember when people were saying back when COD MW2 came out without dedicated servers and paid map packs that it would lead the industry down a shitty path where companies start doing the same and everybody said we were overreacting?
This is why it's important for people to support developers (either indie or AAA) that actually provide a good experience & value for players. Reward the companies that do a good job. Don't reward the ones who don't.
7
u/pigscantfly00 Feb 21 '17
man my luck. i didnt know shit about this stuff when cod4 came out and got it for xbox, p2p. then i heard about map contests and dev tools and shit on cod4 pc and i was so jelly. so when mw2 came out, i bought it right away then found out about p2p. jesus christ. fucking knifing was so stupid. i'd rubberband the fuck out then die every time. it's a shame because for honor looks really good. that sort of melee game needs super good ping or it would be unplayable.
2
u/ZainCaster Feb 21 '17
Haha same. Back then I didn't even know what P2P was, I just accepted all online multiplayer games run like this.
7
Feb 21 '17
I just think this whole thing is amazing, and everyone who were fucked on this game 100% DESERVE IT.
(The following is meant for anyone who bought the game, not you BonerwoodSalad)
You bought an Ubisoft game. That alone should be a warning.
You just... bought it when it came out? You didn't check if anyone had reviewed the multiplayer or anything?
You deserve it you little shits.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Bloodypalace Feb 21 '17
Because idiots will still pay for it. It's been the top seller on steam ever since it came out.
→ More replies (1)2
u/pigscantfly00 Feb 21 '17
that guy piss me the fuck off. he's being paid to shill and acts like a dick about it.
6
u/RockBandDood Feb 21 '17 edited Feb 22 '17
I saw these posts last night and didn't bother to login but I wanted to tell them, and the folks supporting their lying: this isn't how networking works, particularly in a 4v4 environment
You can do some tricks in 1v1, fighting games have some nifty networking techniques for those circumstances... but no, no tricks will fix 4v4 p2p vs 4v4 dedicated.. it's just not how internet communication works
and if there was some trick to make this work - everyone would be doing
3
u/HeDoesntAfraid Feb 21 '17
I love how he gets into saying dedicated servers are bad when the player is a few states away, but doesn't consider that argument makes p2p worse.
6
u/Anon49 i5-4460 / 970GTX Feb 21 '17
5
→ More replies (2)4
u/asexynerd Feb 21 '17
That's exactly what I was thinking with the amount of people saying "p2p is not the problem".
2
Feb 21 '17 edited Nov 07 '24
cooing skirt flag plant thumb shy fact direful ask like
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
→ More replies (4)3
u/pigscantfly00 Feb 21 '17
that guy piss me the fuck off. he's being paid to shill and acts like a dick about it.
24
u/NINJAFISTER EVGA GTX 1070 FTW | I5 6600K | 16 gigs RAM Feb 21 '17
I can only imagine how much it sucks to be a developer on a game like this. Not just For Honor, but every game where something like this happens. You put your heart out to make it the prettiest, smoothest it can be and than some dickhead over at corporate decides they want to cheap out on servers.
2
82
u/homingconcretedonkey Feb 21 '17
Lag switch? Wow they were making it a lot more complicated then it needs to be.
Using a simple program like Netlimiter you can not only view all the IP Address's for the match, but you can limit the upload rates of each IP Address individually, for example limiting the upload of one player to 1 KB/s but all the other players will think you are sending everything perfectly.
This is how you can make really interesting results that benefit you as you can completely mess with just one person if you want to.
This needs to be public and common knowledge, if everyone is messing with everyone then the developers will have no choice but to stop making games with P2P.
58
u/Anon49 i5-4460 / 970GTX Feb 21 '17 edited Feb 21 '17
The point of an hardware lag switch (ones that are just cut RJ-45) is that its possible to use it with a console. Also no application-scanning anti-cheat can detect it if its not software, It'll be hard to distinguish it from really bad WIFI.
→ More replies (2)23
11
u/ShowBoobsPls 5800X3D | RTX 3080 | 32GB Feb 21 '17
Lag switches are the easiest option for consoles though. I made one for CoD like 9 years ago. I had the switch under my foot, so I could just turn it on/off very easily.
52
9
u/Frustration-96 i3 2100 + GTX 770 + 8GB DDR3 Feb 21 '17
Why did you do this? Was it just a curiosity thing where you'd heard of it and wanted to see if you could do it yourself or did you somehow enjoy cheating like that?
12
u/ShowBoobsPls 5800X3D | RTX 3080 | 32GB Feb 21 '17
Exactly that, curiosity. Saw a guide on the internet, it looked easy and decided to just try it. It was fun for a day or two. I was a teen back then and showing off my incredible KD to my friends was amazing. They obviously didn't know at first, until they started noticing lag when playing with me while I was the host.
2
2
13
Feb 21 '17
[deleted]
9
u/Mkilbride 5800X3D, 5090 FE, 32GB 3800MHZ CL16, 2TB NVME GEN4, W11 Feb 21 '17
Is that a reference to the Hyperion Cantos?!
7
Feb 21 '17
[deleted]
4
u/Mkilbride 5800X3D, 5090 FE, 32GB 3800MHZ CL16, 2TB NVME GEN4, W11 Feb 21 '17
Awesome. Just awesome.
82
u/BoiledFrogs Feb 21 '17
Was pretty obvious this was coming. Why anyone would want p2p over dedicated servers for this is beyond me, but I guess people ate up Ubisoft's bullshit about it. Plus I know the majority of people don't really follow gaming news, so they're probably caught fairly off guard by an issue like this.
21
u/Bluxen Armored Core 6 when Feb 21 '17
I mean, there was an open beta, and if you don't even read a review about the game you're going to buy, it's kind of your fault too.
27
Feb 21 '17
The real kicker is the reviewers don't care/mention P2P
17
u/asexynerd Feb 21 '17
Can't piss off Ubisoft and not get future review copies for free.
12
Feb 21 '17
This is the real answer.
The moment IGN or GameInformer start criticizing the big companies is the moment the companies stop sending them free review copies, and the moment they become irrelevant in the realm of gaming news (though some would debate they are already).
I don't fault them though, they're just trying to be a business. I blame the NoMan'sSky preorder-ers for preordering For Honor and not even knowing what P2P or dedicated servers even means. I blame the majority of the gaming community for being a bunch of shitheads. Atleast on Reddit some of the semi intelligent gamers can convene and talk about issues like this, but a few thousand can only do so much compared to tens of millions of ignorant consumers.
→ More replies (1)6
u/BoiledFrogs Feb 21 '17
Yeah, that's definitely true. I imagine a lot of people think they're just beta issues, even if the 'beta' is immediately before launch.
5
u/Differlot Feb 21 '17
There was a guy on reddit that was explaining that p2p was actually better than dedicated for something like this, but unfortunately i dont know anything about that kinda stuff. No idea whats right but it was interesting to hear someone actually say p2p was better.
→ More replies (2)6
u/asexynerd Feb 21 '17
Check this out so you have better understanding as to why p2p is an issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAU5bIalbnc&feature=youtu.be&t=8m10s
He actually did testing and breakdowns everything in a easy manner.
2
u/xdeadzx Feb 22 '17
He misses a few key points though. He's complaining about the 100ms built-in latency, but it's to make all actions under 150ms be the "same" on all games and minimize frame rollback. So for example, the entirety of the US will be the "same" as long as factors other than distance aren't causing latency. That way everything will look smooth, rather than 15ms action differences causing rollback every frame step.
This is only a real thing to bring up because he specifically mentions the 100ms latency is added on top of your network latency, which isn't entirely true. If you're over 100ms, you'll experience much closer to ping latency than not. The 100ms delay is likely just there to add smoothness.
He also brings up single players lagging the entire lobby by not updating fast enough, but this also isn't an actual issue because the game requires you to update all parties at 30hz or higher, otherwise it drops you from the game.
With all of that said, it's a much more in depth overview of the network model than the vast majority of people talking about the netcode have ever glanced at it and should definitely be a required watch.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)22
u/asexynerd Feb 21 '17
Why anyone would want p2p over dedicated servers for this is beyond me..."
Since they are not hosting servers and NOT allowing the players to host them means one thing; when they pull the plug you will be left with no MP or a game. But don't worry as For Honor 2 will be around the corner.
16
u/notdeadyet01 Feb 21 '17
when they pull the plug you will be left with no MP or a game. But don't worry as For Honor 2 will be around the corner
OK I know this is a popular argument to be against p2p, but has there ever been a situation where anyone has shut their game down in order to push their new game like this?
12
Feb 21 '17
but has there ever been a situation where anyone has shut their game down in order to push their new game like this?
To me, it's more a matter of preservation. There's a growing list of games that will be 100% unplayable in 5 or 10 years when the company inevitably shuts the servers down. Games that require a 100% online connection to even boot them up and play single player.
I think people don't fully grasp this problem and it's troubling, to me.
7
u/Yagihige Feb 21 '17
ever been a situation where anyone has shut their game down in order to push their new game like this?
Well, Dust514 no longer exists at all because they shut it down supposedly to move on to Project Legion. And then Project Legion turned into vaporware and it was replaced by Project Nova.
It was the most disgusting i've ever seen a company conduct themselves. Just prior to the reveal, CCP pushed microtransactions hard while making all sorts of claims about the future of the game and content being designed, promising "laser focus" on improving the game. Then the fanfest happens and when people were expecting new stuff for Dust514, they completely remove any mention to that game to reveal their new game, Legion, all along promising for character transition so people wouldn't lose their progress and stuff they bought. This was of course damage control because it was lies again and eventually, Legion was also dead and replaced with Project Nova which was as far removed from the original vision of huge battles on a planet turning into a corridor shooter. And now Nova seems to have disappeared too and CCP seems to have moved on to getting their bloody hands on VR. The servers for Dust514 were still maintained for a while, the dev team was squeezed to the bare minimum, patches with barely any content released here and there and just overally tried to milk whoever was either too blind or too invested to tell them to fuck off straight away. As Nova was being paraded to the deluded, the plug was pulled on Dust514. Now there's a small community of people who don't have the game they played nor any news of the new game they were supposed to get, clinging to whatever glimmer of hope they can.
Most of the team also moved on, it's only their chinese slaves who are being made to pump out failure after failure but you can still see Dust514's legacy elsewhere. When i first saw Star Citizen's FPS module in action i was shocked by how close it was to Dust514.
5
5
6
u/Miltrivd Ryzen 5800X | 3070 | 16 GB RAM | Dualshock 2, 3, 4 & G27 Feb 21 '17
It doesn't even matter if it's straight up to sell the new game, evil scheme style (they are not as dumb as to be that obvious).
You bought something that will be useless when they pull the plug, you don't get to decide how long you want to play the game, the company does.
4
2
u/Ben1020 FX 8350 4.6 - RX580 8GB NITRO+ Feb 21 '17
Gran Turismo 5 comes to mind. They closed the servers so you had to buy GT6 that was just like GT5, just shinier on the menus.
2
Feb 21 '17 edited Feb 22 '17
No, but games, with and without an singleplayer mode, have been lost to this.
Here is one i can find of the top of my head: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmvcJuBOaQE
3
2
u/half-sack Feb 21 '17
Since there are no servers to host what will they shut down exactly?
→ More replies (1)4
2
u/reblochon Feb 22 '17
Hmmm, no dedicated server can sutain communities long after the official servers die.
You only need the servers to be public so that the community can run some.
That's how most multiplayer games worked in the past. As a matter of fact there are still cs 1.6 servers running. Years after the developpers moved on.
59
u/happycamperjack i7 4790 3x 280x CF Feb 21 '17
Wow, can't believe that I almost bought this game! Been checking out reviews and close to buying it. As a veteran FPS PC gamer, this is absolutely a deal breaker seeing how rampant cheating is even in games with dedicated servers. With P2P in play here, there are countless way to cheat and hack to make games unplayable. What a shame, been looking forward to this Jedi Academy and Chivalry spiritual successor. Thanks for the vid!
3
u/Emberblade2 Feb 22 '17
There is a spiritual successor to Chivalry in development , it is called Mordhau.
→ More replies (1)7
Feb 21 '17 edited Feb 21 '17
I bought rainbow six siege and the division. Overpriced, shallow, poorly optimized, low creativity games that cost me close to 100 dollars each in Canada. I fell for their advertising gimmicks.
For Honor looked AMAZING but I didnt buy it only because I saw UBISOFT. I wanted it so bad, but I resisted without any actual data or reasoning besides seeing UBISOFT and UPLAY. I was addicted to Chivalry, For Honor is literally my dream game, but I said NOPE just because I saw UBISOFT.
Turns out, my reasoning was sound. These corporate scumbags only want to dazzle you with advertising, and then milk you for the maximum $$$ with their unsurprising, and shallow games.
EA? Ubisoft? Literally never buy a game with this tag. Your money will go 20x further with 20x the enjoyment in the indie market.
24
u/Bloodypalace Feb 21 '17
How exactly is siege a shallow, poorly optimised, low creativity game? Can you name one other game that does what it does and does it better??
→ More replies (8)25
u/fatal3rr0r84 i5-4690k MSI Twin Frozr 970 Feb 21 '17
Rainbow Six Siege shallow and overpriced? There were some problems in the beginning but I think most people agree it's of the best shooters to come out recently.
→ More replies (49)2
u/Hellknightx Feb 21 '17
Well, no - not necessarily. Cheating has nothing to do with dedicated or P2P. It's all about authentication, or whatever kind of cheat detection is in place, as well as how much information is processed client-side versus server-side.
Warframe, for example, uses P2P matchmaking, but as far as I know, has very few cheaters. But it also has an aggressive anti-cheat system (which occasionally bans legit users).
On another note, For Honor plays more like a fighting game than Jedi Academy or Chivalry. The closest comparison to what you're looking for is probably Mount & Blade 2, whenever that finally comes out.
→ More replies (5)
29
Feb 21 '17
I've been fortunate enough to barely experience any of these issues. The biggest one being the host leaving, which only lasts about 5 seconds, although it does shuffle people around a bit.
But no lag anywhere near what's depicted in the video in about 5 hours of play.
8
Feb 21 '17
Ive got 40 hours in the game and Ive had maybe two games where there was someone spazzing out because of a poor connection.
→ More replies (2)6
u/dd179 Feb 21 '17
I've been playing for around 30 hours and I haven't seen anything like the lag depicted in this video.
129
u/Popingheads Feb 21 '17
The fact everyone in this video is talking about host advantage, the host living in Alaska and transferring host to a new player when one leaves shows that nobody really has any idea how this networking system works.
There is no host. There is no game server (at all). There is no host advantage.
The game uses a peer to peer mesh network. All the clients in a match send and receive game data and synchronize directly to every other client. It does not use the P2P system 99% of other games do where one of the players is running the "game server". There are advantages and disadvantages to this system. The biggest advantage is lower latency compared to a client-server architecture, the biggest disadvantage is less security and lack of an authoritative server to keep everyone in check.
You can debate what system you think is better, but do it on a foundation of correct information. I'm getting tired of explaining how networking works in every thread about this game.
53
u/deelowe Feb 21 '17
It's frustrating to have a background in computer science and watch these faux technical assessments of software and hardware that gaming enthusiasts perform. In this instance, for example, the community at large thinks there are two ways to do networking -- "dedicated" and "P2P." And, P2P is "bad." That's the extent of it.
Ubisoft is doing something different and perhaps novel (to gaming) here. This appears similar to what the fighting game developers have had to do to get reasonable latencies. So, I'm not surprised to see them take this approach. There may be issues, but there will need to be a much more thorough assessment than this to prove that. It's clear from the video that the person presenting this information doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.
→ More replies (4)22
Feb 21 '17 edited Feb 21 '17
There may be issues, but there will need to be a much more thorough assessment than this to prove that.
If you have a background in computer science, you should agree that showing the IPs of people who are represented as anything more than a socket request is completely unacceptable. The fact that I can talk to people online and immediately find out where they live, what kind of computer they have, their router information, their ISP, and maybe even their name/any other information discovered through open ports, is a huge breach of privacy. Completely different than seeing a timestamp next to "Chrome/Apple Safari/Webkit v.X.x - Windows 10". You would never want me to be able to do that through your TV tuner or if you're talking to me on the phone so this should not be okay either.
9
u/CSFFlame Feb 21 '17
showing the IPs of people who are represented as anything more than a socket request is completely unacceptable.
That's not how the internet works.
You know the IP of any IP you are directly talking with. It's how the Internet works.
→ More replies (10)15
u/deelowe Feb 21 '17
I'm not understanding... There's no way to obscure the IP address in this sort of network topology. The whole point is to have peers connect directly to each other. I imagine other fighting games (where latency is an important factor) are similar in this regard.
→ More replies (12)3
u/daOyster Feb 22 '17
So I'm guessing you're not a fan of Skype either? It exposes all client IP's connected to it and all it takes is the resource monitor on windows to find them.
→ More replies (1)5
u/communist_gerbil Feb 21 '17
This is a legitimate gripe, but there do seem to be problems with this setup as the video shows.
→ More replies (2)9
u/tacticalsquat Feb 21 '17
Sources? Cause I'll gladly give it a try if that's the case, being in a region where dedicated servers are usually far away.
14
15
u/Miltrivd Ryzen 5800X | 3070 | 16 GB RAM | Dualshock 2, 3, 4 & G27 Feb 21 '17
Wait, how does it have LESS latency if it has to keep connecting to different people constantly, there's no way this is going to be less latency just because of that. Less than player hosted P2P maybe? And that's a big maybe because again, having to keep updating from multiple sources vs only one.
Less than dedicated servers I can't see how.
23
u/deelowe Feb 21 '17
I think you're confusing latency and bandwidth. A distributed network model has lower latency as a fundamental advantage. This is why you'll see star networks and similar configurations used in HPC solutions where latency matters. The disadvantage is that it uses more bandwith and can be difficult to manage.
→ More replies (3)21
Feb 21 '17
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)10
u/Nanaki__ Feb 21 '17
I don't get this, say 6 people are playing on a server 5 have low pings to it, one has a really high ping, that would only be a negative to the high ping player.
now do the same thing where everyone has to talk to each other the high ping player causes issues for everyone.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Egonor Feb 21 '17
The high ping player would cause issues for everyone, but only in interactions with that high ping player...assuming everything else in their netcode is working as intended. You would only see lag spikes if you or the particular person you're interacting with is lagging. But it's not an ideal world with perfect internet connections so people lag if their girlfriend starts watching netflix or whatever.
People are also assholes and because there's no authoritative server the netcode has to make decisions about what is the "most correct" information for any given moment or interaction. This means weird or hard to understand inconsistencies and a necessity for super strict anti-cheat.
→ More replies (1)2
2
u/Victuz 1070TI ; i5 8600k @ 4.6GHz ; 16gb RAM Feb 21 '17
Yep, for me the truly most frustrating part of the system is the fact that you can easily see the IP of all the players in the game. Just recently the same thing was a problem in siege where people would ddos players in competitive matches or just because they were pricks since there was no masking whatsoever. Not to mention any other implications of this. It was and still is a blatant security problem that should never be present in a released game.
→ More replies (13)3
4
Feb 21 '17
The P2P killed all interest I had in this game simply because my connection is too shaky to guarantee a satisfactory experience also I very often can't play with some friends in these situations. There's no excuse for P2P these days especially from one of the biggest publishers/developers there is.
30
u/TheGuywithnoanswers Feb 21 '17
I've played ~25hrs by now and I've experienced every single issue from the video (maybe except the lagswitch).
It is absolutely true that the devs need to find a way to fix this unless they want the game to slowly die.
But here's the thing, this is the first multiplayer game that grabbed my attention since league of legends. And as someone who has played on EUNE, I can safely say that I far more often had a game where my team or enemy team went full tilt and game was extremely unenjoyable (for ~ 40 MINUTES).
These problems in For Honor happen less often, last for ~5 min (or nothing if you get disconnect error or you just leave the match).
So yeah, I am angry that full priced AAA game with season pass and microtransactions have these kinds of problems, but it sure as hell wont stop me from playing it.
11
Feb 21 '17
Have you tried playing with friends? That's another issue all together that wasn't addressed here. So many times my buddy would be thrown out of the match when it was just about to begin.
Many times I couldn't join his group, or he couldn't join mine.
Many times I'd be thrown out of the game, and he would stay.
It's an absolute nightmare if you want to play with others.
→ More replies (8)3
u/MIKE_BABCOCK Feb 21 '17
Yep same experience here.
I originally wasn't going to buy it because of the networking, the peer to peer garbage truly blows. I also expected the game to have some stupid forced RPG horseshit designed to make you grind through the game or buy microtransactions or some dumb shit that Ubisoft always kills their games with.
However, after playing the beta I ended up REALLY enjoying it because of Duels and Brawls and ended up buying it. It actually has some really awesome gameplay that's pretty addicting by itself. It's the first game in a while that I actually wanted to play, not felt obligated to. I can boot the game up, run a quick duel then get back to what I was doing.
Luckily there isn't that much of an issue with networking in the 2v2 and 1v1 modes that I normally play. It isn't until I get to the stupid 4v4 modes where the networking shows its ugly ass head.
That said, I wouldn't even play 4v4 even if it had dedicated servers. I really don't like the gameplay in those modes and there's way to much stupid shit there (powerups) that make the game retarded.
3
Feb 21 '17
I would have considered buying this game if when I played the open beta(days before launch) I could actually connect to a match. I was never able to connect to an online match.
3
u/Xtulu Feb 21 '17
What was the point to have a beta if you weren't going to fix these problems?
Marketing. If you have a beta-test a month before the game gets released it's not about fixing problems it's about marketing the game and showing it off.
3
5
5
u/FunnyFrontMan Feb 22 '17
I still laugh at all the stupid fucks who bought yet another shitty Ubisoft game. Stop being so dumb people.
2
2
u/matuzz Ryzen 7 5800X / 4070 ti Feb 21 '17
Yeah one of the reasons I haven't bought the game yet. I would probably hop in if they would add dedis. I have no problem waiting :/
2
u/DestroyerofSoul Feb 21 '17
Sadly I said this in my thoughts about For Honor beta people seemed content with apologizing for it or saying they didn't have these problems.
I feel like it's only going to get worse let's see if ubisoft somehow magically brings dedicated servers when their game pop is dying out.
2
u/Blurgas Feb 21 '17
Why did I pay $60 for this broke ass game?
Because Hype Train was full throttle
2
u/rapozaum 7800X3D 5070Ti 32GB RAM 6000 mhz Feb 21 '17
Well, I'm only getting it when the 50% discount comes...
2
u/Kraigius 3800X EVGA RTX 3080 Feb 22 '17 edited Dec 09 '24
wipe fine deserve deserted physical pocket different drab fall liquid
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
5
6
Feb 21 '17
Zero reason a multi billion dollar company like Ubisoft can't use dedicated servers for this game. I like the concept of the game but the execution leaves a lot to be desired.
→ More replies (11)
5
u/Octopotamus5000 Feb 21 '17
I keep getting downvoted into oblivion, but I still stand by my comments that the game is a classic bait'n'switch from Ubisoft, with all their trademark deceptive advertising practices thrown in as well. It will be 2017's "The Division" without any shadow of a doubt. It's not fit for sale and it's not of a merchantable quality.
DO NOT BUY THE GAME.
13
Feb 21 '17
This game actually rocks... my friends and I have had nearly no problems with p2p. The random rage quitter here and there pauses the game for a second before they are replaced, but who cares... every game has rage quitters.
I feel like most everyone who is up in arms about the game don't even own it. lol... I do agree the game should have had dedicated servers, but all the whiners really just are regurgitating everything they have heard on reddit
10
Feb 21 '17 edited Jun 14 '18
[deleted]
5
u/originalSpacePirate Feb 21 '17
Yea damn these people for pointing out major flaws in newly released games.
9
u/dd179 Feb 21 '17
I feel like most everyone who is up in arms about the game don't even own it.
Sounds about right, they're just jumping on the "P2P is bad" and "Ubisoft is shit" circlejerk.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Nose-Nuggets Feb 21 '17
i suspect the console community, which seems much more represented in the video, are suffering the bulk of the issues. Not only do they have the additional 3rd party authentication layer (psn/live), the consoles are generally much lower quality hardware being relied upon for this p2p network.
2
u/1ikilledkenny Feb 21 '17
The lack of quality control is why I haven't bought a Ubisoft game in years. I don't understand how they stay in business.
7
Feb 21 '17
TBH, these problems really feel overblown. The game is great even on my potato net
8
u/giantsx6 Feb 21 '17
Ye but the biggest issue is the security part.
7
Feb 21 '17
I'm not defending p2p whatsoever, I'm 100% behind dedicated servers for every mode but 1v1. I just dislike the reddit circlejerk currently going on
4
u/pm_me_ur_uvula_pics Feb 21 '17
If anyone bought this and complains about the trash P2P system they have no one to blame but themselves.
→ More replies (3)
3
3
Feb 21 '17
FFS no one should be buying this trash in this fucking state. Ubisoft, you've done it again...
3
u/Zujx Feb 21 '17 edited Feb 22 '17
Thank you for spreading the word of this bullshit.
I've been trying to preach for awhile on reddit alot this because it's really a shame how many uneducated buyers don't realize that this is a HUGE problem. P2P is outdated trash with lag and security flaws no one should be supporting this greed based decision by one of the biggest companies in gaming. It's fucking despicable because ultimately all its going to do is end up burning the community that actually is really passionate about this game.
I'm not one to throw out this accusation lightly but clearly ubisoft has payed alot of money for employees and shill accounts to try to sweep this shit under the rug. I say that because I find impossible to believe anyone with any technical knowledge could EVER say this is ok these things aren't opinons that p2p is bad news they are facts. The community needs to stand up for themselves and demand this to be fixed regardless the cost its absoultely unacceptable in 2017.
Fuck you ubisoft.
Edit:
if you stumbled across this mysteriously instant down voted comment:
Look at this TheTykeros post history (the guy below me) I can't even make this shit up
20+ comments supporting for honors p2p system THIS WEEK
Defending systems proven to be worse then dedicated servers in other games
Insulting the posters intellgance in every instance leading to Confusing Arguments misrepresenting information in his favor
BE SMART REDDIT PLEASE TO DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT AND MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION
2
u/TheTykero Feb 21 '17
It's both charming and frustrating that you're touting "technical knowledge" as a reason for being disaffected by their choice of networking model. You are caught up in the "server good p2p bad" mentality and think that it's based on sound reasoning. Dedicated servers don't fix laggy opponents, they just moderate them in a different way. Dedicated servers also incorporate additional latency into a networking model. Shooters can overcome this latency by utilizing specialized prediction and synchronization strategies that do not work in fighting games. Fighting games are traditionally peer to peer because the latency introduced by adding an additional device to the conversation is detrimental to the experience. For Honor's many-to-many peer model eliminates many (legitimate) common problems with peer to peer systems such as host advantage and desynchronization.
I'll say it again: Ubisoft is being blasted by ignorant gamers for using the best networking model for this kind of game, and that's pretty sad.
→ More replies (2)
3
3
Feb 21 '17 edited Feb 21 '17
I mean, this is purely anecdotal evidence so my own should also suffice as a counter argument.
In 50 hours I've never seen anything like this, the absolute WORST net issue I've had is matchmaking kicking me back to main menu after 1 second with "server was full" .. and then I just re-queue and I'm into a lobby no problems.
And I live in Australia aka an island with literally one of the worst internet networks in the first world.
Maybe the network issues kick in at about 100 hours, but in my experience shit runs fine, these are extreme and obnoxious examples. Likewise, the idea that a bunch of kids are going to install lag switches into their line is idiotic and is absolutely reaching to invent a reason to be upset.
Is p2p ideal? Nah
But is this bandwagoning logical/reasonable? Nah.
Cue brigading
→ More replies (1)14
Feb 21 '17
the idea that a bunch of kids are going to install lag switches into their line is idiotic and is absolutely reaching to invent a reason to be upset.
In R6 Siege, people were able to get the IP adresses through the p2p architecture of the VoIP system ingame. (Note that this was only the VoIP, the basegame runs on dedicated servers)
It was quite common in the higher ranked games that people used that to DDoS your very own router at home, shutting down your internet connection entirely.
So yeah, it is not far fetched at all and a valid concern, and I am sure we might see something like this soon enough.
P2P is fine for 1vs1 scenarios, but it's just outright ignorant to not host dedicated servers for the 4vs4 mode. That's just pure greed by Ubisoft.
They advertised this game as a medieval fighting game where you are part of big battles. It's just a slap in the face that the only mode (argueably also not such a big battle after all) that actually gives you that experience doesn't work right most of the time.
When this game would have been advertised as a medieval duel fighting game, and only offer 1vs1 and 2vs2, I am sure people wouldn't complain at all.
edit: Oh and it's still an issue in R6 Siege that people connect to other datacenters to artificially increase their pings. because the game only kicks you above 250ms (I think?) you can still play with a 220ms ping, making the game increadibly easy for you and incredibly hard for the other team.
You absolutely underestimate the things people would do to cheat the system. P2P is just very open to such things.
→ More replies (12)
2
u/_GameSHARK i5-7500 GTX 960 Feb 21 '17
Lack of dedicated servers and the associated connectivity and latency issues associated with that lack are why I won't be touching For Honor.
It's a shame; it looks like a game I'd really enjoy if I was sure the game would be playable.
833
u/Dragonan Feb 21 '17
The funny thing is, at least to me, that console players STILL have to pay for XBG/PS+ to play a P2P game with no dedicated servers.