PDA

View Full Version : Let's talk about the servers.



handheld brando
09-06-2016, 08:31 PM
First I have to say that I personally believe that dedicated servers are a requirement for this game. In a game like this where every split second matters and the moment by moment action and decision making is critical. Dedicated servers reign supreme.

They are expensive to have but overall they make the game far better for every player. In some of my matches I experienced lag, which is understandable because it does happen sometimes. Thankfully this wasn't too often but when it did it was so crippiling that it was almost a guaranteed loss.

This is the type of game where the Servers can make or break it and I want to see this game succeed and to do that I fully believe that it needs Dedicated servers to keep the gameplay as crisp and quick as possible. Not only would this alleviate reaction time issues but it may also open up the game to even more people who have slower connections.

What about you?

Do you guys believe we need dedicated servers?

ZenBearV13
09-06-2016, 08:44 PM
Absolutely agreed!

handheld brando
09-06-2016, 08:45 PM
Absolutely agreed!

Thanks but for clarities sake can you explain why you agree?

fixate.
09-06-2016, 08:56 PM
Dedicated servers will definitely be needed for a stable competitive environment. P2P is far too inconsistent and leads to a general advantage to whoever becomes the host/lives near the host.

Pure P2P would work if this game was a console exclusive but on PC dedicated servers should be a guarantee at this point.

DraxeI
09-06-2016, 09:02 PM
For Honor will certainly require dedicated servers!

With the game basing itself around reacting to your opponent and exploiting openings, having a fair connection between players is paramount.
If this was a $20 game, I could understand there would have to be cuts. But for a full-price game, we deserve "premium" service.

DMills88
09-06-2016, 09:07 PM
I am not going to go to deep into an explanation as people in here have already said what I want to say. Mainly that Dedicated servers will make or break this game and I want to see it succeed. One of my favorite games was the first gears of war and when you had host you were noticeably more powerful. With a game like this where Blocking and parrying and pressing buttons to counter guard breaks is key to any player worth their salt, have a host advantage has no place.

Fatal-Feit
09-06-2016, 09:09 PM
There isn't even an argument to be made against dedicated servers. It's an absolute must if the developers want this game to succeed. Sure, the initial sales might be good with enough marketing, but P2P will kill 90% of its playerbase after the first week or so. It doesn't matter how much content and effort you put into this game, only your hardcore fans will suffer through its unbalance servers.

It's a little costly, but would you prefer to have your game die after a month?

Qiwi94
09-06-2016, 10:18 PM
Yes, I would prefer it for sure. But to be honest the tech test worked pretty well for me! I mean it was unstable at times and that sucked. So yes please stability is important.

XDeadzX
09-07-2016, 12:18 AM
Since I'm the first to say no, I'll throw my opinion out there. For Honor is mostly small scale, with 1v1 and 2v2 gamemodes, and a 4v4. I think dedicated servers for duels and brawls is overkill, and could possibly hurt the community. Conquest (or whatever, 4v4) could probably deal with dedicated servers and be fine, it'd be a good idea to put them there. But brawl and duel would be hindered by a dedicated server having to spool up every time you wanted a lobby. It would also create more imbalance than peer to peer already does in a 1v1 situation. With low lobby counts, you can do a full client side latency check (on every client) and still have low bandwidth usage, resulting in even 100ms pings being near perfect, compared to a 20ms dedicated server.

It also makes private lobbies (duels with friends) harder to manage and if you're dueling a friend, you're probably closer to each other than a dedicated server would be anyhow. On top of that, if we have a decent player count during the games life, peer to peer won't be that bad off because we'll have a large choice of hosts. Sure we might get a couple bad hosts, but pretty much 9/10 games I played during technical were flawless latency wise anyhow. Sub 80ms pings, with very little issue outside of host migration when people quit.

With proper host migration (and latency migration, if the host goes to **** mid-match) I don't think we'll see issues with peer to peer hosting even in the 4v4 conquest. Definitely not as bad as other game genres like shooters, however they would still be an improvement. That improvement might not be worth it until population drops off however.

I think a switch should be made later in the games lifetime, once player base isn't at peak. But at peak, peer to peer is good enough.

Lerneros
09-07-2016, 01:18 AM
Dedicated servers for all the reasons mentioned above from the rest of the people.
Seriously if such a game wants to ensure a healthy fast environment for a competitive scene there is no real dilemma imho.

BudBro49
09-07-2016, 02:34 AM
Dedicated servers are a necessity for this games continued success. The true term for what people mean when they say peer-to-peer, is a Listen Server. This is when a host gets randomly selected, often the selection pool is from the players with the best connections. All the other players then connect to this host, if the host leaves the game either crashes, or migrates to a different host. Listen server configurations do require a server, which is what is different from a P2P.

Now, Dedicated servers host games. Your internet may not have a high upload more than a few players, many players are in this position. So a dedicated server's internet connection has a very high upload speed to cope with many more players. This also means that a developer will need to have a server bank. This is just many dedicated servers in a large room. There are commonly multiple server banks around the world, and often multiple in countries. As you can guess this all makes the cost of dedicated servers high. You also need to maintain and run the servers for a long time. The biggest advantage of dedicated servers is stability, these create a very stable connection for players, who are then equally matched due to ping often being very low. This game will probably need something like cosmetic items and skins/executions to buy "Micro-transactions". Hint hint.

Idk. Maybe its just me, but I played League of Legends since 2011 and have invested way too much money into that game... However if you deliver a game that's fun, re-playable, competitive, and constant new FREE content, no DLC packages that split the player-base... Then I would happily invest in SKins, Executions, emblems, you name it. However, with anything remotely resembling P2P, I fear for the game's overall long term success...

That's my feels, anyhow.

PowerSenpai
09-07-2016, 07:45 AM
If this game has a ranked game mode (which i hope it does) then i really hope that at least that mode will have proper servers. I don't think the game could be properly competitive without servers.

Honorhound01
09-07-2016, 07:56 AM
For Honor will certainly require dedicated servers!

With the game basing itself around reacting to your opponent and exploiting openings, having a fair connection between players is paramount.
If this was a $20 game, I could understand there would have to be cuts. But for a full-price game, we deserve "premium" service.

This is how I feel; we need dedicated servers.

handheld brando
09-07-2016, 09:01 AM
Dedicated servers are a necessity for this games continued success. The true term for what people mean when they say peer-to-peer, is a Listen Server. This is when a host gets randomly selected, often the selection pool is from the players with the best connections. All the other players then connect to this host, if the host leaves the game either crashes, or migrates to a different host. Listen server configurations do require a server, which is what is different from a P2P.

Now, Dedicated servers host games. Your internet may not have a high upload more than a few players, many players are in this position. So a dedicated server's internet connection has a very high upload speed to cope with many more players. This also means that a developer will need to have a server bank. This is just many dedicated servers in a large room. There are commonly multiple server banks around the world, and often multiple in countries. As you can guess this all makes the cost of dedicated servers high. You also need to maintain and run the servers for a long time. The biggest advantage of dedicated servers is stability, these create a very stable connection for players, who are then equally matched due to ping often being very low. This game will probably need something like cosmetic items and skins/executions to buy "Micro-transactions". Hint hint.

Idk. Maybe its just me, but I played League of Legends since 2011 and have invested way too much money into that game... However if you deliver a game that's fun, re-playable, competitive, and constant new FREE content, no DLC packages that split the player-base... Then I would happily invest in SKins, Executions, emblems, you name it. However, with anything remotely resembling P2P, I fear for the game's overall long term success...

That's my feels, anyhow.

I have been playing League of legends since its Alpha and one thing that League has always had was good servers.

Not the best mind you but above average.

A game like this is far more action/reaction based and an action that takes too long for the server to recognize is a death sentence in a match.

ZenBearV13
09-07-2016, 09:45 AM
Thanks but for clarities sake can you explain why you agree?

I felt you summed it up perfectly. :p Now that more discussion has happened I have a few things to add...


Since I'm the first to say no, I'll throw my opinion out there. For Honor is mostly small scale, with 1v1 and 2v2 gamemodes, and a 4v4. I think dedicated servers for duels and brawls is overkill, and could possibly hurt the community. Conquest (or whatever, 4v4) could probably deal with dedicated servers and be fine, it'd be a good idea to put them there. But brawl and duel would be hindered by a dedicated server having to spool up every time you wanted a lobby. It would also create more imbalance than peer to peer already does in a 1v1 situation. With low lobby counts, you can do a full client side latency check (on every client) and still have low bandwidth usage, resulting in even 100ms pings being near perfect, compared to a 20ms dedicated server.

It also makes private lobbies (duels with friends) harder to manage and if you're dueling a friend, you're probably closer to each other than a dedicated server would be anyhow. On top of that, if we have a decent player count during the games life, peer to peer won't be that bad off because we'll have a large choice of hosts. Sure we might get a couple bad hosts, but pretty much 9/10 games I played during technical were flawless latency wise anyhow. Sub 80ms pings, with very little issue outside of host migration when people quit.

With proper host migration (and latency migration, if the host goes to **** mid-match) I don't think we'll see issues with peer to peer hosting even in the 4v4 conquest. Definitely not as bad as other game genres like shooters, however they would still be an improvement. That improvement might not be worth it until population drops off however.

I think a switch should be made later in the games lifetime, once player base isn't at peak. But at peak, peer to peer is good enough.

I am in no way fluent in computerese, so most of this was over my head, but I appreciate someone taking a critical eye to the real nitty gritty of the hardware/software. I think the 4v4 latency will be the most important, since it seems likely to be the game's primary mode. Could you elaborate on what issues dedicated servers might cause in 1v1? Please use layman's terms. :p


Dedicated servers are a necessity for this games continued success. The true term for what people mean when they say peer-to-peer, is a Listen Server. This is when a host gets randomly selected, often the selection pool is from the players with the best connections. All the other players then connect to this host, if the host leaves the game either crashes, or migrates to a different host. Listen server configurations do require a server, which is what is different from a P2P.

Now, Dedicated servers host games. Your internet may not have a high upload more than a few players, many players are in this position. So a dedicated server's internet connection has a very high upload speed to cope with many more players. This also means that a developer will need to have a server bank. This is just many dedicated servers in a large room. There are commonly multiple server banks around the world, and often multiple in countries. As you can guess this all makes the cost of dedicated servers high. You also need to maintain and run the servers for a long time. The biggest advantage of dedicated servers is stability, these create a very stable connection for players, who are then equally matched due to ping often being very low. This game will probably need something like cosmetic items and skins/executions to buy "Micro-transactions". Hint hint.

Idk. Maybe its just me, but I played League of Legends since 2011 and have invested way too much money into that game... However if you deliver a game that's fun, re-playable, competitive, and constant new FREE content, no DLC packages that split the player-base... Then I would happily invest in SKins, Executions, emblems, you name it. However, with anything remotely resembling P2P, I fear for the game's overall long term success...

That's my feels, anyhow.

I feel like micro transactions get a really bad rap, but in my opinion League of Legends does it right. I too have spent a remarkable amount of money on a free game, and I don't feel bad about it because they're constantly working on the game and that ain't free! I want For Honor to have the same developer support and longevity, so they need a steady stream of income. Making it voluntary by offering frivolous but cool things that don't directly affect gameplay allows the game to grow with a large and diverse player base, and we all know those goodies are hard to resist so a lot of us, hardcore fans and casuals alike, will drop a dollar here and there which collectively will add up to new DLC.


I have been playing League of legends since its Alpha and one thing that League has always had was good servers.

Not the best mind you but above average.

A game like this is far more action/reaction based and an action that takes too long for the server to recognize is a death sentence in a match.

This is the decisive reason why For Honor needs the best internet support it can muster, and as far as I can tell Dedicated Servers are the cutting edge.

handheld brando
09-07-2016, 09:57 AM
I felt you summed it up perfectly. :p Now that more discussion has happened I have a few things to add...



I am in no way fluent in computerese, so most of this was over my head, but I appreciate someone taking a critical eye to the real nitty gritty of the hardware/software. I think the 4v4 latency will be the most important, since it seems likely to be the game's primary mode. Could you elaborate on what issues dedicated servers might cause in 1v1? Please use layman's terms. :p



Basically the reason hes arguing for P2P is because in a 1v1 setting there is less that the data has to go through.

In a p2p one player is the host and the other is not but the data from the match is shared only between these 2 players so there is less routing to deal with.

Dedicated servers would have both players send and receive data from the servers so there is an extra bit of routing for the commands. In a p2p the host will always have a slight advantage due to the data the other player is receiving would be coming from the host. Host will get slightly faster reactions and will have a far better connection to the game than the receiving player.

I can see his point and do agree a bit but Dedicated servers for Dominion are a must or any of the other 4v4 modes. For 1v1 he may have a point though.


The issue with P2P is if the host has a poor connection then EVERYBODY has a poor connection and then the game will either have to migrate to another host and if it can't then most likely the match will simply forcibly end because of migration errors.

Listening servers could be a decent mid point but even then its still iffy.



I feel like micro transactions get a really bad rap, but in my opinion League of Legends does it right. I too have spent a remarkable amount of money on a free game, and I don't feel bad about it because they're constantly working on the game and that ain't free! I want For Honor to have the same developer support and longevity, so they need a steady stream of income. Making it voluntary by offering frivolous but cool things that don't directly affect gameplay allows the game to grow with a large and diverse player base, and we all know those goodies are hard to resist so a lot of us, hardcore fans and casuals alike, will drop a dollar here and there which collectively will add up to new DLC.

I don't mind Micro transactions in the slightest as long as they are done right.

I have seen a ton of games offer convenience items like faster XP and reward chance boosts etc.

In a game like this with items that have stats that could be severely detrimental to the overall health of the game as then we could have "Wallet Warriors" who gain advantages by buying a ton of XP boosts and then playing a bunch and then having significant gear/level advantages on their opponents.

Cosmetic Microtransactions however are always a huge plus for everyone and most people love to spend money on cosmetic stuff. I personally would love to buy a ton of cosmetic items so long as the currency for in game items and the currency for cosmetic items are separate so I can't buy in game money for cosmetics and then turn around and use that money for in game gear.

JonYurBz
09-07-2016, 02:27 PM
I play rb6 on ps4 which has dedicated servers ,if I remember correctly, and it isn't going to hot for us over there nearly a year later. So if it's the same servers for rb6 we might have a problem. Ubi should look into new servers for the games because in my eyes and many others what they use is not up to snuff with other companies and what they use. This game needs that for it to work and not be frustrating but not sure if even ubi dedicated servers are good enough. We will see but if it's like rb6 we will have issues. Hope the singleplayer is good to go.

XDeadzX
09-07-2016, 06:22 PM
I am in no way fluent in computerese, so most of this was over my head, but I appreciate someone taking a critical eye to the real nitty gritty of the hardware/software. I think the 4v4 latency will be the most important, since it seems likely to be the game's primary mode. Could you elaborate on what issues dedicated servers might cause in 1v1? Please use layman's terms. :p


Dedicated servers would cause issues in 1v1s a few different ways.

1. Matches take longer to "make" when matchmaking, because a server has to start and stop every time you enter/exit matchmaking. Could take 3 second matchmaking and change it to 30 second matchmaking or more, just to have 1 in 20 matches play smoother.

2. Promotes "location advantage" and removes multi-client checks by having a dedicated server doing checking. This ruins 1v1s, not so much 4v4s. In a peer to peer situation with a very low player count, you can ask EVERY client to say "Did this work?" and get a reply "Yes/No" from every client very quickly. This allows EVERYONE to have a "hosts advantage" thus removing the advantage. This would only work if configured properly, but I believe For Honor can manage it. Usually games will either use client sided hit detection, or server(host) sided hit detection, or client sided with server verification.

Client sided, what you see is what you get. However enemies often won't see exactly the same thing, and you get a lot of "why'd that happen?"
Server sided, the player with the higher ping is at a disadvantage all the time, can't 1v1 great because the server will often say "nah, he hit you so your attacks didn't work."
Client sided with server checks is the best, IF you have anti-cheat. I'm going to assume anti-cheat and not get into the other side. This method mostly removes hosts-advantage and uber low latency advantage, while still allowing a high ping (250ms+) to not lose instantly in every twitch moment. This is because they would have a client sided check, then the server would check "Is it possible for you to have done that?" and it confirms. The important bit of 1v1 peer to peer, is you can set up client side with server checks to rather than "main server" checks, it checks with EVERY OTHER CLIENT. So everyone would be having local checks (what buttons you press) and server checks on everyone elses clients (did he actually hit?) which is totally do-able with the low hits per second and low player count of the smaller game modes. This would create a better 1v1 relationship than dedicated servers would anyways.

Since it was brought up, League of Legends uses peer to peer with the "Client sided with server checks" method. At least, it did for the first 5 or so years of life. So if you're happy with LoLs server situation, you're happy with peer to peer/listen servers.

3. Allows for actual competitive play at tournaments. On dedicated servers, you have to obtain a build specifically for LAN play, in order to hook up a local tournament because the client won't do it automatically. Typically player run dedicated servers aren't what people are looking for when they complain about "dedicated servers" -- That's another topic, and I really don't think it would work in For Honor, but I digress. With peer to peer, if you run a local match (like an internet cafe) you can have EVERYONE in the match with sub 5ms pings, rather than if your nearest hub is on a coast and you're not, 40+ ms pings at best. p2p/listen servers allow for that to be built into the game, with zero extra work on anyone's part. This lets the community make the competitive scene small scale, and developers host it large-scale.

4. Ping relationships. I'm going to use a really... awkward example just because it's one of the most extremes. You have a gamer in Europe, and a gamer on the East Coast of US. The only "open" dedicated server is west coast US. Suddenly the east coast guy has a ping of 60, Eur guy has a ping of 350+. In a peer to peer situation, the ping difference between both of them would only be 100ms.

5. This tiny reply box is hard to keep track of things in. Match creation times, better competitive 1v1 performance, local tournament hosting, better potential lag compensation, better anti-cheat.
___

Hopefully this isn't too much 'computerese' for you, single out details and I can try to clarify better.

___


The issue with P2P is if the host has a poor connection then EVERYBODY has a poor connection and then the game will either have to migrate to another host and if it can't then most likely the match will simply forcibly end because of migration errors.

Listening servers could be a decent mid point but even then its still iffy.

Listening server is just a fancy term for peer to peer/client hosting. It's the same thing.

As for host connections, that's one of the bigger things I kinda side-stepped. Host Migration needs to be considered all match, not just when they drop the game. If the host suddenly goes south, stop letting them host mid-match. If they start dropping packets (lagswitch) then drop them as host immediately. If their bandwidth suddenly cuts out (cause they start torrenting or something) drop them for that too. Just in general, if they cause a poor experience, kick them from the host position. Or don't force single-hosting and instead make everyone a "server check" and then you don't have to care about a single players pings. That would get very... connection intensive in a 8 player game though. Keep that for 2v2/1v1. 1v1 being 2 connections (one each way) 2v2 being 12 connections and 4v4 being 56 connections total, or per person; 1 connection for 1v1, 3 connections for 4v4, and 7 connections for 4v4. Being that VOIP is also a connection, double those numbers for every player with VOIP in the game.

Some worse routers wouldn't be able to handle that, and we're talking about 10KB/s per player... meaning the minimum bandwidth would be 3Mbit bi-directional connection in order to even play a 4v4 game. Might alienate some potential non-euro/America players. Or even a lot of US players because US doesn't get upload bandwidth. :(

But really, the problems with p2p/listen servers can be avoided. There's ways around it.

handheld brando
09-07-2016, 09:23 PM
Since it was brought up, League of Legends uses peer to peer with the "Client sided with server checks" method. At least, it did for the first 5 or so years of life. So if you're happy with LoLs server situation, you're happy with peer to peer/listen servers.

League of legends wasn't P2P only the patching process was.

If they did P2P it would be a nightmare considering the host would literally be sending all the data to 9 other people at once and having to update their positions even through fog of war. League has almost always had servers of its own its just not something that is talked about. League in the beginning years was much slower paced compared to what it is now and a P2P in it at this point would kill the game. For Honor is a faster paced game depending on split second reactions and decision making whereas



Listening server is just a fancy term for peer to peer/client hosting. It's the same thing.

As for host connections, that's one of the bigger things I kinda side-stepped. Host Migration needs to be considered all match, not just when they drop the game. If the host suddenly goes south, stop letting them host mid-match. If they start dropping packets (lagswitch) then drop them as host immediately. If their bandwidth suddenly cuts out (cause they start torrenting or something) drop them for that too. Just in general, if they cause a poor experience, kick them from the host position. Or don't force single-hosting and instead make everyone a "server check" and then you don't have to care about a single players pings. That would get very... connection intensive in a 8 player game though. Keep that for 2v2/1v1. 1v1 being 2 connections (one each way) 2v2 being 12 connections and 4v4 being 56 connections total, or per person; 1 connection for 1v1, 3 connections for 4v4, and 7 connections for 4v4. Being that VOIP is also a connection, double those numbers for every player with VOIP in the game.

Some worse routers wouldn't be able to handle that, and we're talking about 10KB/s per player... meaning the minimum bandwidth would be 3Mbit bi-directional connection in order to even play a 4v4 game. Might alienate some potential non-euro/America players. Or even a lot of US players because US doesn't get upload bandwidth.

But really, the problems with p2p/listen servers can be avoided. There's ways around it.

You know who suffers in that situation?

Not the host but everyone else that was connected to him. When a hosts connection goes south then everybodies connection goes south until a new host is found and if the next host found has a wanting connection then the entire game could forcibly be ended by a host migration failure. I do sorta agree with the 1v1 P2P being alright but for 4v4 without a dedicated server the game will be a nightmare and will die a quick death.

Usually P2P tries to choose the strongest possible host of all the players available and should that persons connection be dookie as well then everyones connection in turn will be dookie.



Promotes "location advantage"

This is not an advantage so much as it is luck of the draw.
Having the host of a P2P match is a straight advantage because in a 1v1 situation he is always going to react faster/better than you do. If its based on location then its whoever just happens to be closest to the server. Unless someone decides to move closer to a server intentionally specifically for that purpose then I would rather deal with "Location advantage" than simply someone having an advantage just because they are the host.

XDeadzX
09-07-2016, 10:47 PM
You know who suffers in that situation?

Not the host but everyone else that was connected to him. When a hosts connection goes south then everybodies connection goes south until a new host is found and if the next host found has a wanting connection then the entire game could forcibly be ended by a host migration failure. I do sorta agree with the 1v1 P2P being alright but for 4v4 without a dedicated server the game will be a nightmare and will die a quick death.

Usually P2P tries to choose the strongest possible host of all the players available and should that persons connection be dookie as well then everyones connection in turn will be dookie.




This is not an advantage so much as it is luck of the draw.
Having the host of a P2P match is a straight advantage because in a 1v1 situation he is always going to react faster/better than you do. If its based on location then its whoever just happens to be closest to the server. Unless someone decides to move closer to a server intentionally specifically for that purpose then I would rather deal with "Location advantage" than simply someone having an advantage just because they are the host.

I listed two separate scenarios, and in both no one suffers besides those who are already problematic regardless of dedicated hosting or peer to peer. In the first, we're considering a flawless host migration, which means Strict NAT players wouldn't be able to play, you're right they would suffer. But everyone with an open NAT, we could easily shuffle hosts 3+ times a game and keep a stable game going. Do it in the background and sync hosts between 2-4 good connection players dynamically and you'd never see an issue with dropping matches again. Just needs host migration to actually function 100% of the time.

In the second, no one but the person with a connection problem would suffer. You'd run checks between 7 other players and favor the client, you'd find it better than 99% of dedicated hosts with any form of lag compensation (literally ever fps ever.) So no hosts advantage because "everyone" would be host when referring to what is typically a hosts advantage.
___

Location advantage is exactly what people ***** about with hosts advantage though. It offers more consistency, but you're still running into the issue of latency causing faster reactions. The guy who lives in Germany will always be better than the guy living in say, Iran, simply because the server is hosted in Germany. At least with peer to peer, hosts advantage changes game-to-game and you can end up having a good match if you lived away from the server. Or in a much more realistic case, Australians using peer to peer is superior to a master dedicated server in California or Germany. Unless you normalize everything to 150ms+ for lag compensation (like street fighter did on 360, dunno about other titles), you're going to be getting people saying there needs to be a dedicated server on every neighborhood. (minor hyperbole)





League of legends wasn't P2P only the patching process was.

This isn't true. The game got big and DDOSing got big and riot changed to a server model to prevent IP leaking and DDOSing. You used to be able to see updates locally and nab player IPs with wireshark/resource monitor/etc. Maybe 5 years is a bit of an exaggeration, but definitely took them a while after launch to dip over to servers.

Chaf--
09-08-2016, 12:27 AM
Dedicated servers could be cool, yeah. But what we also need in this game is LAN compatibility.

BudBro49
09-08-2016, 01:57 AM
Dedicated servers would cause issues in 1v1s a few different ways.

1. Matches take longer to "make" when matchmaking, because a server has to start and stop every time you enter/exit matchmaking. Could take 3 second matchmaking and change it to 30 second matchmaking or more, just to have 1 in 20 matches play smoother.

2. Promotes "location advantage" and removes multi-client checks by having a dedicated server doing checking. This ruins 1v1s, not so much 4v4s. In a peer to peer situation with a very low player count, you can ask EVERY client to say "Did this work?" and get a reply "Yes/No" from every client very quickly. This allows EVERYONE to have a "hosts advantage" thus removing the advantage. This would only work if configured properly, but I believe For Honor can manage it. Usually games will either use client sided hit detection, or server(host) sided hit detection, or client sided with server verification.

Client sided, what you see is what you get. However enemies often won't see exactly the same thing, and you get a lot of "why'd that happen?"
Server sided, the player with the higher ping is at a disadvantage all the time, can't 1v1 great because the server will often say "nah, he hit you so your attacks didn't work."
Client sided with server checks is the best, IF you have anti-cheat. I'm going to assume anti-cheat and not get into the other side. This method mostly removes hosts-advantage and uber low latency advantage, while still allowing a high ping (250ms+) to not lose instantly in every twitch moment. This is because they would have a client sided check, then the server would check "Is it possible for you to have done that?" and it confirms. The important bit of 1v1 peer to peer, is you can set up client side with server checks to rather than "main server" checks, it checks with EVERY OTHER CLIENT. So everyone would be having local checks (what buttons you press) and server checks on everyone elses clients (did he actually hit?) which is totally do-able with the low hits per second and low player count of the smaller game modes. This would create a better 1v1 relationship than dedicated servers would anyways.

Since it was brought up, League of Legends uses peer to peer with the "Client sided with server checks" method. At least, it did for the first 5 or so years of life. So if you're happy with LoLs server situation, you're happy with peer to peer/listen servers.

3. Allows for actual competitive play at tournaments. On dedicated servers, you have to obtain a build specifically for LAN play, in order to hook up a local tournament because the client won't do it automatically. Typically player run dedicated servers aren't what people are looking for when they complain about "dedicated servers" -- That's another topic, and I really don't think it would work in For Honor, but I digress. With peer to peer, if you run a local match (like an internet cafe) you can have EVERYONE in the match with sub 5ms pings, rather than if your nearest hub is on a coast and you're not, 40+ ms pings at best. p2p/listen servers allow for that to be built into the game, with zero extra work on anyone's part. This lets the community make the competitive scene small scale, and developers host it large-scale.

4. Ping relationships. I'm going to use a really... awkward example just because it's one of the most extremes. You have a gamer in Europe, and a gamer on the East Coast of US. The only "open" dedicated server is west coast US. Suddenly the east coast guy has a ping of 60, Eur guy has a ping of 350+. In a peer to peer situation, the ping difference between both of them would only be 100ms.

5. This tiny reply box is hard to keep track of things in. Match creation times, better competitive 1v1 performance, local tournament hosting, better potential lag compensation, better anti-cheat.
___

Hopefully this isn't too much 'computerese' for you, single out details and I can try to clarify better.

___


Listening server is just a fancy term for peer to peer/client hosting. It's the same thing.

As for host connections, that's one of the bigger things I kinda side-stepped. Host Migration needs to be considered all match, not just when they drop the game. If the host suddenly goes south, stop letting them host mid-match. If they start dropping packets (lagswitch) then drop them as host immediately. If their bandwidth suddenly cuts out (cause they start torrenting or something) drop them for that too. Just in general, if they cause a poor experience, kick them from the host position. Or don't force single-hosting and instead make everyone a "server check" and then you don't have to care about a single players pings. That would get very... connection intensive in a 8 player game though. Keep that for 2v2/1v1. 1v1 being 2 connections (one each way) 2v2 being 12 connections and 4v4 being 56 connections total, or per person; 1 connection for 1v1, 3 connections for 4v4, and 7 connections for 4v4. Being that VOIP is also a connection, double those numbers for every player with VOIP in the game.

Some worse routers wouldn't be able to handle that, and we're talking about 10KB/s per player... meaning the minimum bandwidth would be 3Mbit bi-directional connection in order to even play a 4v4 game. Might alienate some potential non-euro/America players. Or even a lot of US players because US doesn't get upload bandwidth. :(

But really, the problems with p2p/listen servers can be avoided. There's ways around it.

In reality, you could solve a lot of the "Problems" with servers of fighting games like Street FIghter... 1v1's and 2v2's will have lobby's where they have spectators watching the 1v1 or 2v2 fight, and whoever wins, fights the next people in Que (Or however the settings are setup for that server, as I'm sure anyone familiar with what I'm talking about knows you can make it winner stays or loser stays, etc), and the server doesn't technically "end", as it stays up so long as there is a lobby of spectators and people fighting. This way servers can host large groups of players, stay dedicated, and you add a social aspect to it, that creates community and gets people really involved in the game. You can make rules with server size, to make sure players in the server play more frequently, or you can be hardcore and make it where winner always plays next game and just que vs the next fighter in line.
Just a thought, anyhow.

l...WoLf...l
09-08-2016, 01:33 PM
Have high hopes for this game and i really want to enjoy it in an smooth gameplay without experiencing lags and high pings.

Bludrew28
09-08-2016, 04:06 PM
In my opinion dedicated servers are a must as well as Private servers as well for this game to do well in the MLG and competitive scene. I personally want to see this game make it as a highly competitive game that makes the cut to be part of the MLG scene with ladders and tournaments. Because I for sure will be a part of that scene in For Honor. But for that to take place you need Dedicated servers for the ranked ladder within the game itself(Ubisoft's ranked games) and then private servers dedicated towards 3rd party tournaments and leagues such as the MLG.

ZenBearV13
09-08-2016, 07:30 PM
On the point of prioritizing 1v1 latency vs 4v4, remember that 3 out of 5 game modes announced thus far are 4v4; Dominion, Elimination and whatever TDM is called. Brawl is 2v2 and only Duel is 1v1. 4v4 latency needs to be the priority to stabilize.

MisterWillow
09-09-2016, 04:04 AM
whatever TDM is called.

Skirmish, I believe.

handheld brando
09-09-2016, 02:37 PM
In my opinion dedicated servers are a must as well as Private servers as well for this game to do well in the MLG and competitive scene. I personally want to see this game make it as a highly competitive game that makes the cut to be part of the MLG scene with ladders and tournaments. Because I for sure will be a part of that scene in For Honor. But for that to take place you need Dedicated servers for the ranked ladder within the game itself(Ubisoft's ranked games) and then private servers dedicated towards 3rd party tournaments and leagues such as the MLG.

I don't know how I feel about private servers.

That may splinter the community and we don't know how big the population would be.

HideoshiKaze.TV
09-10-2016, 03:12 AM
I just hope the dedicated servers will be hosted in Seattle or close by where I live for NA West lol.

Otherwise due to latency, I'm not sure how I'll do on this game in the long run haha

handheld brando
09-10-2016, 09:47 AM
I just hope the dedicated servers will be hosted in Seattle or close by where I live for NA West lol.

Otherwise due to latency, I'm not sure how I'll do on this game in the long run haha

How do you even have internet?

Like do ya'll got like polar bears with Wifi receivers just roaming around and **** to give you all internet? :D

VanessaKallon
09-14-2016, 02:39 PM
- stability
- no last-hit-will-die-leaver-hosts
- maybe better to prevent cheating / to track down cheaters for semi (and perma) bans

keizersozer
01-10-2017, 04:31 PM
2017 multiplayer game focused an looking for e-sport with no dedicated server??? :(:(:(:(:(:(

more explanation see my thread here:
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1542846-for-honor-a-TRUE-GEM-that-makes-me-cry!

iHunny
01-10-2017, 05:00 PM
2017 multiplayer game focused an looking for e-sport with no dedicated server??? :(:(:(:(:(:(

more explanation see my thread here:
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1542846-for-honor-a-TRUE-GEM-that-makes-me-cry!

I am not sure they have focused on e-sports with this game. I think they are going slow before they aim for e-sport scene with the game. Am I wrong in this? Have they made official statements about e-sports for For Honor?

orangebionic
01-10-2017, 08:07 PM
Dedicated servers for the win. For reason mentioned already, but I just outline problem with p2p:
-Host advantage
-lag
- netcode having to compensate for bad connection of players,etc.
-disconnections.

When you play typical fps game, doesnt really matter if 2 out of 40 players lag, or their connection give them advantage. When its 2, 4 or 8 it matter a lot. If you die 5 times due to lag in game when you go 30-20 it doesnt really matter, its small annoyance, but when you go 4-4 or 6-3 its make it or brake it.

Finally let me share my experience with other Ubi non-shooter online in the past. P2P as well, unfortunately. That was Assasin Creed multiplayer, and especially brotherhood , it felt fresh, and awesome. To those , who didnt play it, you were competingagainst other team, like in fps game, in certain objective modes, and you could assasinate same way like in single player. If attacked , you have short window, to use defence button, which stun attacker.

Needless to say, timing was everything , pretty much as I guess in For Honor. What was main complain back then? When you perform assasination, animation was switched on,( like in bf1 takedown from the back) and that supposed to be that, that irreversible from the side of the "victim". However due to pvp side effects, it was quite common to be stunned, inside of your own assasination, by the assasinated player , just to taunt you on top of that, lol,

if that game aspire to be more than arcade fun, if there supposed to be rankings, maybe tournaments, and publicity, it has to be serious in its whole approach, unbalanced , random p2p arent the way to go.

waraidako
01-10-2017, 11:38 PM
I agree so much that one of the first things I did after the alpha in September was to make a thread about it.

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1495800-Peer-2-Peer-has-to-go

Soul.RED
01-11-2017, 02:35 AM
keep on dreaming, dev already said they will be using p2p with hybrid system (whatever that mean is)

TCTF_SWAT
01-11-2017, 02:56 AM
Doesn't matter to me. As long as it's playable I don't care.

Mr_Gallows
01-12-2017, 08:53 AM
I'm interrested in if it's possible to make your own private matches with friends. I have a great connection, cabled, a high end router dedicated to gaming. If I set up a game we will all have a great experience. Anyone know if you can set up private matches where one player sets the game up as host?

messer-Simon
01-14-2017, 10:02 AM
I agree

e.Key
01-14-2017, 02:34 PM
Why would any major company use p2p instead of dedicated servers anyway? They do not costs that much do they?
It makes the game much more enjoyable, especially as i would say, it mainly an online title. So why ruin the game with p2p?
I won't buy the game on day one because i want to know first if it's got ranked and if the connection is fine.

Dez_troi_aR
01-14-2017, 04:00 PM
Dedicated servers would cause issues in 1v1s a few different ways.

1. Matches take longer to "make" when matchmaking, because a server has to start and stop every time you enter/exit matchmaking. Could take 3 second matchmaking and change it to 30 second matchmaking or more, just to have 1 in 20 matches play smoother.

2. Promotes "location advantage" and removes multi-client checks by having a dedicated server doing checking. This ruins 1v1s, not so much 4v4s. In a peer to peer situation with a very low player count, you can ask EVERY client to say "Did this work?" and get a reply "Yes/No" from every client very quickly. This allows EVERYONE to have a "hosts advantage" thus removing the advantage. This would only work if configured properly, but I believe For Honor can manage it. Usually games will either use client sided hit detection, or server(host) sided hit detection, or client sided with server verification.

Client sided, what you see is what you get. However enemies often won't see exactly the same thing, and you get a lot of "why'd that happen?"
Server sided, the player with the higher ping is at a disadvantage all the time, can't 1v1 great because the server will often say "nah, he hit you so your attacks didn't work."
Client sided with server checks is the best, IF you have anti-cheat. I'm going to assume anti-cheat and not get into the other side. This method mostly removes hosts-advantage and uber low latency advantage, while still allowing a high ping (250ms+) to not lose instantly in every twitch moment. This is because they would have a client sided check, then the server would check "Is it possible for you to have done that?" and it confirms. The important bit of 1v1 peer to peer, is you can set up client side with server checks to rather than "main server" checks, it checks with EVERY OTHER CLIENT. So everyone would be having local checks (what buttons you press) and server checks on everyone elses clients (did he actually hit?) which is totally do-able with the low hits per second and low player count of the smaller game modes. This would create a better 1v1 relationship than dedicated servers would anyways.

Since it was brought up, League of Legends uses peer to peer with the "Client sided with server checks" method. At least, it did for the first 5 or so years of life. So if you're happy with LoLs server situation, you're happy with peer to peer/listen servers.

3. Allows for actual competitive play at tournaments. On dedicated servers, you have to obtain a build specifically for LAN play, in order to hook up a local tournament because the client won't do it automatically. Typically player run dedicated servers aren't what people are looking for when they complain about "dedicated servers" -- That's another topic, and I really don't think it would work in For Honor, but I digress. With peer to peer, if you run a local match (like an internet cafe) you can have EVERYONE in the match with sub 5ms pings, rather than if your nearest hub is on a coast and you're not, 40+ ms pings at best. p2p/listen servers allow for that to be built into the game, with zero extra work on anyone's part. This lets the community make the competitive scene small scale, and developers host it large-scale.

4. Ping relationships. I'm going to use a really... awkward example just because it's one of the most extremes. You have a gamer in Europe, and a gamer on the East Coast of US. The only "open" dedicated server is west coast US. Suddenly the east coast guy has a ping of 60, Eur guy has a ping of 350+. In a peer to peer situation, the ping difference between both of them would only be 100ms.

5. This tiny reply box is hard to keep track of things in. Match creation times, better competitive 1v1 performance, local tournament hosting, better potential lag compensation, better anti-cheat.
___

Hopefully this isn't too much 'computerese' for you, single out details and I can try to clarify better.

___


Listening server is just a fancy term for peer to peer/client hosting. It's the same thing.

As for host connections, that's one of the bigger things I kinda side-stepped. Host Migration needs to be considered all match, not just when they drop the game. If the host suddenly goes south, stop letting them host mid-match. If they start dropping packets (lagswitch) then drop them as host immediately. If their bandwidth suddenly cuts out (cause they start torrenting or something) drop them for that too. Just in general, if they cause a poor experience, kick them from the host position. Or don't force single-hosting and instead make everyone a "server check" and then you don't have to care about a single players pings. That would get very... connection intensive in a 8 player game though. Keep that for 2v2/1v1. 1v1 being 2 connections (one each way) 2v2 being 12 connections and 4v4 being 56 connections total, or per person; 1 connection for 1v1, 3 connections for 4v4, and 7 connections for 4v4. Being that VOIP is also a connection, double those numbers for every player with VOIP in the game.

Some worse routers wouldn't be able to handle that, and we're talking about 10KB/s per player... meaning the minimum bandwidth would be 3Mbit bi-directional connection in order to even play a 4v4 game. Might alienate some potential non-euro/America players. Or even a lot of US players because US doesn't get upload bandwidth. :(

But really, the problems with p2p/listen servers can be avoided. There's ways around it.

This answer, whether you understand it or agree with it or not, demonstrates that the topic we are talking about here is far too complex for the average gamer to make a valuable and competent statement about.
No offense to anyone but 95% of the comments made here are based on personal experience and some wikipedia research. My personal experiences with p2p games happened to be positive but i dont think that this qualifies me to step up for p2p now.

As a customer, i only care about the game running properly online, how they do it is up to them. Yes, it is crucial for this game to run properly online and many, including me, will stop playing it if it doesnt, but i am sure ubisoft and the IT-experts employed by them have had this enlightened realization before.

Anybody who writes comments like "I want dedicated servers because they do not lag" maybe should consider if he doesnt overestimate his competence.

For me it is a matter of respect for the people who have studied IT for years to not give my google-powered and "read-on-reddit-that"-based opinion on how to do their job.

e.Key
01-14-2017, 04:09 PM
For me it is a matter of respect for the people who have studied IT for years to not give my google-powered and "read-on-reddit-that"-based opinion on how to do their job.

True, but maybe it isn't up to the IT guys to decide what kind of connection will be used.

waraidako
01-14-2017, 05:15 PM
The question still remains, all of the things suggested by xdeadzx, are they actually going to do those? I don't really care if dedicated servers means people with bad connections are always at a disadvantage. That's life, get a better connection. You can't hamstring games because you're concerned about low-end users. It sucks for them, but if you're sitting on a 56k modem in 2017, maybe you don't get to play online on the same terms as everyone else. The same disadvantage exists for PC gamers with low end PCs who can't hit 60fps or higher. Should games all lock to 30 just to make sure they don't have a disadvantage, or is it up to them to get a better PC? What about gaming mice and surround headsets? Those also give an advantage, should sound be locked to stereo to prevent people with these from having an advantage too?

P2P is breeding ground for lag switchers. We've all seen how bad it can get. And having played the alpha we've all seen how detrimental P2P is to For Honor already. If you're just running around, host migration is an annoyance, but if you're in the middle of a fight, it's rage inducing. If there was some way to guarantee that people without at least a 10mb uncapped, unthrottled upload connection could not in any way be hosts, I'd be more okay with P2P, but that's not the case.

This is not acceptable:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMiXzaz_6cc

e.Key
01-14-2017, 05:46 PM
Not a good sign that they are quiet about this, but i guess beta will reveal it anyway.

Dez_troi_aR
01-14-2017, 06:29 PM
@ Waraidako: You are right, of course this is not acceptable. They would be mad releasing an online-multiplayergame where such incidents happen regularly. They would maybe make some quick bucks by screwing over everyone who pre-ordered and then never sell a copy of the game again while angry fans would stomp ubis reputation.
The only time i could maybe tolerate some technical difficulties would be during a tech-test ! Oh, wait... ;)
@Keygeee: Well, they are not quiet about it. They stated that they will stick with p2p servers but develop their own online architecture around it. What they do not do is send one of their IT-nerds over to the Forum to discuss net-codes with 14year olds. (I know i am salty, forgive me, i never had a dog which made me a bad person :,(
But yes, the Beta will bring more clarity.

Have a nice evening everybody :) !

e.Key
01-14-2017, 06:36 PM
@Keygeee: Well, they are not quiet about it. They stated that they will stick with p2p servers but develop their own online architecture around it. What they do not do is send one of their IT-nerds over to the Forum to discuss net-codes with 14year olds. (I know i am salty, forgive me, i never had a dog which made me a bad person :,(
But yes, the Beta will bring more clarity.

Have a nice evening everybody :) !
Haha np :)
I know nothing about the possibilities of p2p, but from what i know and experienced i am very concerned about p2p. Hopeflly beta will shows how good or bad the connection is.
In any case i really hope it's working well so we can all enjoy the game :)

xLeapingLizardx
01-14-2017, 07:52 PM
@ Waraidako: You are right, of course this is not acceptable. They would be mad releasing an online-multiplayergame where such incidents happen regularly. They would maybe make some quick bucks by screwing over everyone who pre-ordered and then never sell a copy of the game again while angry fans would stomp ubis reputation.
The only time i could maybe tolerate some technical difficulties would be during a tech-test ! Oh, wait... ;)
@Keygeee: Well, they are not quiet about it. They stated that they will stick with p2p servers but develop their own online architecture around it. What they do not do is send one of their IT-nerds over to the Forum to discuss net-codes with 14year olds. (I know i am salty, forgive me, i never had a dog which made me a bad person :,(
But yes, the Beta will bring more clarity.

Have a nice evening everybody :) !

TBH, this post is gold! xD

waraidako
01-14-2017, 08:39 PM
@ Waraidako: You are right, of course this is not acceptable. They would be mad releasing an online-multiplayergame where such incidents happen regularly. They would maybe make some quick bucks by screwing over everyone who pre-ordered and then never sell a copy of the game again while angry fans would stomp ubis reputation.
The only time i could maybe tolerate some technical difficulties would be during a tech-test ! Oh, wait... ;)

I have not seen or heard anything that suggests this is an alpha issue, rather than a P2P issue. No matter how well coded, the game itself can't solve problems that stem from people's ****ty internet connections.

BananaBlighter
01-14-2017, 08:57 PM
I have not seen or heard anything that suggests this is an alpha issue, rather than a P2P issue. No matter how well coded, the game itself can't solve problems that stem from people's ****ty internet connections.

I've put hundreds of hours into The Last of Us multiplayer, which is p2p, and rarely experience problems like in the video, so yeah, it can be done properly and is not only a result of people bad internet connection. The problem is probably more of an alpha issue and can be resolved for the most part by launch.

That said dedicated servers would be ideal - I will not deny that TLOU MP can have problems with lag in terms of inconsistencies between what appears on different players' screens. Often you have times where on my screen I'm behind someone but then suddenly they shiv me (which can only be done when standing behind someone, so clearly on their side they were standing behind me). Reaction time in For Honor is very important, more so than TLOU (which is a very slow paced stealth shooter), so problems like I've just described could become even more apparent in a game like this.