PDA

View Full Version : Why I canceled my pre-order and you should too



Tenmar
02-10-2017, 11:43 PM
Let me get this out of the way for all the people ready to defend Ubisoft and the developers. Yes, the game is fun, it's a good 3d fighting game with the flexibility to include other game modes like capture point. The marketing of this game has been great, it's used celebrities, twitch partners, and made deals to be advertised on Youtube and other social media.

However, the reason we as consumers should not purchase or pre-order this game is the design choice of Peer to Peer. Ubisoft and the dev team should take this not as a criticism but as a warning. For Honor will fail should they stay with this path of peer to peer. Many great multiplayer games that try to put the burden on the consumer to host matches have always failed to be a long lasting and more importantly profitable game. Games like Space Marine 40k had an amazing multiplayer scene but failed because of Peer to Peer.

For those that don't know what Peer to Peer is, Peer to Peer (P2P) is a design in which a group of computers are not relying on a server but instead a computer within the group will be responsible for the burden of sending and receiving data to the group. So for example, in a dominion match consisting of eight players, one of the players will be designated as "host" and the remaining players will be reliant on their connection to receive all inputs and to maintain a connection to stay in the match. Should the designated host have a poor computer in terms of specs, a poor wireless or wired connection (dial up, satellite, etc), or poor internet speed will heavily affect the match. Results of having even one of these factors can lead to matches dropping, players disconnecting, or delayed inputs.

This is the factor as to why this game will not last the flavor of the week/month test. On the technical side, the average consumer does not have a decent internet connection. Many homes across the USA are still reliant on satellite or even dial up. Even if you do have a quality speed, many consumers have opted for wireless connectivity or forced into that choice due to the location of the router.

But how does this affect the gameplay? Well at its core, For Honor is a 3d fighting game. Mechanics are dependent on players performing combos and any delay is deemed unacceptable as every frame and input counts. What separates For Honor from Street Fighter and other fighting games is that their fighting games are 1v1. This game offers 1v1 but it also offers 2v2, and 4v4 game modes. That's four and eight players that have to maintain a connection to a random host across the USA or potentially the world.

Now imagine playing any other or your favorite multiplayer game where you are reliant on some random person to keep you connected in a match. Your inputs delayed, you or your opponents position isn't what it appears to be, where you didn't pick up a health pack that was there but instead was given to another player because they were given priority. All of these in your favorite strategy game, FPS, Third Person Shooter, MMO, all would be considered unacceptable and unplayable.

Ubisoft and Blue Byte, if you want this game to succeed in the long run and maintain a dedicated player base you need to implement dedicated servers. I understand that you do save a lot of money by designing the game to be peer to peer. However, with how much marketing and time you as a company have invested in this game it will be a success you throw away if you don't give the game the support it deserves. You've marketed this game and pulled out all the stops. You got celebrity support, you contracted youtubers and twitch streamers to promote your game and you dominate ad space to be the game of the week. That is millions of consumers ready to buy your game. But they won't be retained when they find out that the majority of their games will results in disconnects or find that they are losing due to input delays or where another player is given priority. This will be the game that Ubisoft can point to on how to do a 3D fighting gaming right.

This game will fail if you don't give the game the support it deserves. For Honor deserves dedicated server support. Don't skimp out and try and save money with how gigantic you are as a publisher in the video game industry.

EDIT:

I see a lot of posts here go "Saw P2P, stopped reading".

And credit to Mister.Genji for linking me to ubisoft's post on how they are doing their online system because that if anything only strengthens my argument on why you shouldn't support this game if it maintains P2P. And I will admit, it is not the traditional Peer to Peer system. However, it is still Peer to Peer.

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1571773-Q-amp-A-on-For-Honor-s-Online-System

http://static2.cdn.ubi.com/ForHonor/online_graph.png

I want you to look at the second link which is utilized in link posted above the picture. That is their description of their online system for their game For Honor. And I want you too read their post carefully and look at the picture carefully. They state that their system is not traditional Peer to Peer, they are correct in that. However, and this is where the picture comes into play. Ubisoft states that

"During matches, every player runs a synchronized simulation and the game is played without any game host; all players are sending to all players what they are doing without the need of any answers from the other players thanks to the simulation."

So looking at the picture, everyone has to be connected and on the same page before the match can continue. So, while there is no singular host, they made there system where everyone is the host. Because if you notice the one thing missing from their diagram that still makes it peer to peer is the lack of a server.

The cons of peer to peer still exists. Except now instead of simply blaming one person for a poor connection, you now get to blame up to SEVEN other people for not having a quality internet connection and being unable to send and receive the inputs to other players.

Everything else in that post is marketing and while it is a neat trick, this model is only ideal in situations for multiplayer games that are more LAN/WAN focused. Not on a national or global scale.

Remember, if there isn't a server doing the hosting, it is still peer to peer. No matter how you spin it.

And let me put in one more final word. I want this game to succeed in the long run and I want to play more of For Honor. But the network connectivity solution for online play is an unacceptable solution for how many units this game will push. The only proper solution is dedicated servers.

EDIT 2: You know, there are times that I hate but I found a fix that is simple and not listed under their troubleshooting for PC.

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1571401-PC-Connectivity-Troubleshooting

So the thing that isn't listed and actually fixed my problem wasn't the port forwarding, or making sure the game Forhonor.exe was allowed through the firewall, nor clearing my background applications, or resetting my hosts file.

The ONE thing that actually finally resolved my problem was to let Uplay.exe through the firewall. Which is strange because you have to add that application onto the firewall list manually. Which doesn't make sense as I was able to run Uplay, run For Honor and not have any windows message to allow Uplay.exe through the firewall.

I still think this game deserves dedicated servers as I did still have times where a person would rage quit and the entire match would drop but going from 90% disconnect from matches down to 10% is a pretty big improvement. An improvement, but not a solution that this game deserves.

EDIT 4: I can't believe I'm coming back to this thread but now I'm back where I started...

Yeah I can play the game on 4v4 deathmatch or dominion again. And even the 1v1 and 2v2 are 50/50 at best. I had hope and the reality of the situation is that despite having a 30 mbps up/5 mbps down and a computer with the last of the 5th gen I7 and a GTX 1070 shows me that this game will fail because of peer to peer and not dedicated servers. Ya got a great game Ubisoft but I can't buy your game given that you won't give it the proper support it deserves.

DasUberSheep
02-10-2017, 11:55 PM
Hi,

"Ubisoft and the dev team should take this not as a criticism but as a warning" funny you mention this, but this game is just a repeat of Rainbow Six: Siege. Multiplayer based game which does multiplayer absolutely wrong. It was an utter fail then and it is a giant fail now. The game may be good, but it can only be good if you can actually play it (which is not the case).
I remember the time I lost with R6: Siege asking for help in these forums, only to have the idiots (sorry, but it is the only accurate term to refer to anyone that works on their support team) tell you that this is your fault, open this port and that, disable background applications (I laughed quite hard when I heard this the first time xD), and all manner of dumb stuff, when it is clear that the problem is on their side and due to their own stupidity. Even when trying the Betas my NAT indicator was going from green to red from time to time, which was at that time I knew this would fail with the same issues R6 did. The only game in around 15 years of playing games online without any problem to fail so badly and with such a bad support team.
It's amazing that they didn't learn from their previous experience, goes to show how dumb some people can be.

I most certainly will not buy this game and thankfully have been able to stop all my friends from doing it as well, and stay away from Ubisoft garbage. Just by showing them how the experience was with R6 and even talking about The Division for a bit will convince anyone that this company has no clue how to make a decent online game :p

It is a real shame that such a big company can't compare to any other online game and make such silly mistakes recurrently.

Zevram86
02-10-2017, 11:57 PM
Well said.

I may be refunding my purchase by the end of the Beta weekends if there isn't an official statement on this subject by Ubisoft, soon.

Mr.0reo
02-11-2017, 12:00 AM
I stopped reading at P2P.


http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1571773-Q-amp-A-on-For-Honor-s-Online-System

Brave_Thunder
02-11-2017, 12:01 AM
I've played many games with an host sistem (the cod series till bo2 comes easily to mind) and while it can't be negated that giving at one player the "control" of the match fluidity is bad(especially with the combat system that we have)I've rarely experienced problems.I played the beta for about 10 hours,in every mode,and lagged in 1 of 2 games out of the total,with a 10 Mbs connection.

While I can't find problems in game,the 1v1 seems to be buggy,it takes an eternity to find a game (even with 130k people on,other modes are way faster).There are also some errors that block the matchmaking.

All in all,this are the major flaw of the game imo.But doing pvp in the souls was way worst than this,phantom range and teleports were common.That's why I'm going to buy it at day 1,when hopefully 1v1 matchmaking will be fixed.

RatedChaotic
02-11-2017, 12:02 AM
As soon as I got to the first Peer to Peer I stopped. I read too many of these threads already. <hits preorder button> Bye!!!

The title tipped me off on how foolish this thread would be with the "you should too" at the end. Wish I never clicked on it.

DasUberSheep
02-11-2017, 12:03 AM
I suggest you ignore any statement or support "suggestion" from them. You will only be deceived and waste your money on a game you won't be able to play, and time trying to solve a non-existing problem on your side while they try to convince you that it is.

Darkrynblade
02-11-2017, 12:03 AM
It is funny how Ubisoft can spend however much it takes to market the game and try to get people to buy it, just to skimp out and be as cheap they possibly can for something that actually matters and would eliminate almost all of their user complaints, and show some integrity for the products they wish to sell consumers. Overwatch didn't become the next biggest multiplayer game on the scene JUST from the game alone, it used dedicated servers and they even went the extra mile to use high-bandwidth servers so players had consistent and rewarding matches, which brought them back for me. The current state of the connectivity is only turning myself away, in addition to the majority of players I have spoken with on the game. It's just messed up.

Olikorn
02-11-2017, 12:04 AM
For those that don't know what Peer to Peer is, Peer to Peer (P2P) is a design in which a group of computers are not relying on a server but instead a computer within the group will be responsible for the burden of sending and receiving data to the group. So for example, in a dominion match consisting of eight players, one of the players will be designated as "host" and the remaining players will be reliant on their connection to receive all inputs and to maintain a connection to stay in the match. Should the designated host have a poor computer in terms of specs, a poor wireless or wired connection (dial up, satellite, etc), or poor internet speed will heavily affect the match. Results of having even one of these factors can lead to matches dropping, players disconnecting, or delayed inputs.
That's exactly what For Honor is NOT doing, as explained here: http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1571773-Q-amp-A-on-For-Honor-s-Online-System

I'm not saying there aren't connectivity issues, but at least get your facts straight.

BaratheoWn
02-11-2017, 12:07 AM
@Tenmar

What to add at your pinpointed post? Well just...Peer2Peer in 2017 would be the easiest answer.
It's possible that only The Blizzard and few Others are able to make Perfect AAA Game since the open beta?!
I can truly say that if For Honor would had dedicated servers the Community Support section of this forum Would be almost empty, but is an expansive solution...#NoBalls
my preorder? lel:cool:

Tenmar
02-11-2017, 12:15 AM
I stopped reading at P2P.


http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1571773-Q-amp-A-on-For-Honor-s-Online-System

You do realize that is still a version P2P. It is just marketed as not traditional P2P. Wanna know why? Ask yourself this. Where is the server?

Even their diagram shows that instead of a singular person being a host, everyone is the host. There still is no server and with their model which is being described as non-traditional P2P, you are now reliant on everyone maintaining a quality connection.

If anything there are additional cons to their model. Since everyone has to be in sync, the quality of the match will be affected by every moment someone drops their connection, gets a small disconnect and you still will have the issue of delayed inputs.

That post is marketing to deal with the complaints of P2P while still being P2P.

Knight_Gregor
02-11-2017, 12:17 AM
The fact of the matter is this has been going at least since the release of Rainbow 6: Vegas. You'll get plenty of people on here defending Ubisoft posting links like the one above, as if a migrating host setup removes host advantage. People generally talking out of their asses. I've been in several tech tests. The same problems persist and are ignored, per the usual with Ubisoft.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there is host advantage. Just get a buddy and try to alternate guard breaks and counters. Now compound the issue with six more potential hosts and you get the cluster we have now.

If you really want Ubisoft to listen. Show them how you feel with your wallets. Nothing will change until we do.

DasUberSheep
02-11-2017, 12:21 AM
The fact of the matter is this has been going at least since the release of Rainbow 6: Vegas. You'll get plenty of people on here defending Ubisoft posting links like the one above, as if a migrating host setup removes host advantage. People generally talking out of their asses. I've been in several tech tests. The same problems persist and are ignored, per the usual with Ubisoft.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there is host advantage. Just get a buddy and try to alternate guard breaks and counters. Now compound the issue with six more potential hosts and you get the cluster we have now.

If you really want Ubisoft to listen. Show them how you feel with your wallets. Nothing will change until we do.

Exactly this. This has been reported for a very long time and they do not listen. The time and money lost with Rainbow Six: Siege has made me sure that Ubisoft will never get another purchase from me.

Captain-Jin
02-11-2017, 12:22 AM
http://image.prntscr.com/image/11734f7d1d874ae9bc7f1f86afafdc8f.png

For Honor is doing Peer-to-Peer, but while most people see the connection like the first image, it's actually the second. It's like P2P+ or a mesh network; it's probably the best possible way to do P2P, but P2P is still an awful idea for these reasons. If one person has a bad connection, then every player had a bad connection with that one person. And if that one person is designated as the host, then the entire match will mostly be a laggy clustertruck in terms of bots, minions, and capture point-updates. Sure, the people you have a good connection with will be fine, but at the same time as OP said, most people's connection are about average; meaning that being simultaneously connected to multiple users (up to 7 others in dominion) for updates makes their networks work harder, and therefore reduce in connection quality. It makes good connections ok and bad connections worse. Also, this explains why instead of a ping number they have the 3 bars of connectivity; they can't show all simultaneous connections going on at once without it being a matrix-sized list of numbers.

Again they're P2P setup it's honestly a pretty good idea and I'd almost call it innovative as a server-alternative, but P2P is still a terrible idea for the average player.

AkenoKobayashi
02-11-2017, 12:48 AM
Shouldn't we all know that pre-orders and special editions are worthless from playing the Division? All my exclusive content that came with the Gold edition is now available to the peasants that bought standard edition.

Vakris_One
02-11-2017, 01:01 AM
I don't do pre-orders anyway, I find it a bizzarre notion to buy something preemptively without seeing the full and complete product you are paying for. I'll see what the launch version looks like in the first month and then I'll probably buy it - it's a fantastic game minus the connectivity issues.

It bears saying; For Honor has had one of most extensive beta tests I have ever seen and it's been a wonderful gesture by Ubisoft to us the gamers/future customers and it shows they are really passionate about this game. Yes, the connectivity issues are a major problem but at least we have foreknowledge of this! So many publishers would have just kept this under wraps, taken people's money and shipped the game in a broken state ala Arkham Knight, No Man's Sky, etc.

I for one am grateful to Ubisoft for treating us like valued customers and not mindless sheeple who'll just buy anything. I beleive the For Honor team are trying their best to deliver a great game for us and that's worthy of my respect and at some point my cash too. I hope this inspires other games companies to be as confident and honourable with their products.

XORaptor0
02-11-2017, 01:04 AM
I didn't pre-order, because I never pre-order anything - especially things I plan to buy online and have no production limits.
So, now that I think about it, I'll hold off on purchasing the game. Because of the gender locking (which I really hate), and no dedicated servers. I'm pretty much done with playing skill/reaction based games with input delays.

And I'm pretty much done with being forced to play female when I wanna play male, and playing male when I wanna play female.
Let me customize, dammit!

Lord.Lando
02-11-2017, 01:31 AM
For those that don't know what Peer to Peer is, Peer to Peer (P2P) is a design in which a group of computers are not relying on a server but instead a computer within the group will be responsible for the burden of sending and receiving data to the group. So for example, in a dominion match consisting of eight players, one of the players will be designated as "host" and the remaining players will be reliant on their connection to receive all inputs and to maintain a connection to stay in the match. Should the designated host have a poor computer in terms of specs, a poor wireless or wired connection (dial up, satellite, etc), or poor internet speed will heavily affect the match. Results of having even one of these factors can lead to matches dropping, players disconnecting, or delayed inputs.

This is the factor as to why this game will not last the flavor of the week/month test. On the technical side, the average consumer does not have a decent internet connection. Many homes across the USA are still reliant on satellite or even dial up. Even if you do have a quality speed, many consumers have opted for wireless connectivity or forced into that choice due to the location of the router.
.

Yes please tell us how you know everyone's average internet speeds and that people still use dial up..... I had to stop reading there. You are talking about GAMERS. Let me say that again. GAMERS.

GAMERS

Not your average consumer. GTFO of here with your dumb@ss assumptions....

Captain-Jin
02-11-2017, 01:35 AM
Yes please tell us how you know everyone's average internet speeds and that people still use dial up..... I had to stop reading there. You are talking about GAMERS. Let me say that again. GAMERS.

GAMERS

Not your average consumer. GTFO of here with your dumb@ss assumptions....

Don't be rude Lando. For Honor has pretty low system specs, and most gamers objectively do have far better computers than internet connections. I may have a $3k PC, but if my internet service provider is **** it won't help with the P2P setup.

D_cover
02-11-2017, 01:41 AM
I have a pretty beefy PC and a 200mb/s most of my friends have a decent connection a mid tier PC;s

Uthar2009
02-11-2017, 01:47 AM
After reading this I totally agree, not to mention ubisoft has lost my trust with there multiplayer in general with AC unity. Where I stand now is, until ubisoft fixes old games that people loved, I will not be buying any new ones.

Ununiumplum
02-11-2017, 01:49 AM
Same here. My gaming rig is high-end but my current location forces me to use ****ty ISP (there's only one in the area) and it can't handle P2P :P
Only one strange thing is that I can play ANY other online game (Diablo, Overwatch, LoL, WoW, Fifa, GTA V online etc.) without problems. Only Ubisoft games (The Crew at start and now For Honor) are really unplayable.

DeaIman
02-11-2017, 01:59 AM
Their way of doing P2P is not new, it's been around for a while and it too suffers from the same issues as traditional P2P does and I'm fairly sure that plus the unnecessarily long loading times are what's gonna kill this game, unfortunately.

You can tell this game is made on the same engine as R6: Siege because it suffers from the same terrible netcoding. Sure we don't have a host so we don't necessarily have the host migration anymore, but we do still have the recover the gamestate and as far as I can tell, like 7 out of 10 times this happens it just gets stuck on that for all eternity and all you can do is kill the process.

For a game that's about to release on the 14th, this product is NOT FINISHED. Delay it, Ubisoft you need to get the thumb out of your rear and stop releasing unfinished products, you have already surpassed EA Games in terms of being one of the most reputable publishers of bad games. That's not a good thing, no-one likes UPlay, it's bad in every aspect - it's buggy as hell, you can't even fix the gosh darn cursor bug.

This is a good game, it certainly has potential but as always the greedy higher-ups sitting in their tuxedo suits need it to be released so they can buy their next sports car ASAP. I'm sick of seeing good games receive bad recognition simply because it's pushed out too fast.

Stop it Ubisoft or you'll eventually dig your own grave. :rolleyes:

Fa3r.
02-11-2017, 02:26 AM
I want to love the game so bad, but Ubisoft really slayed it for me.

It's just crazy to me that a game emphasizing multiplayer replayability would go with any form of P2P. The more I learn about the game the more it screams cash grab.

For a $60 game, the content is very minimal. This would be offset if the replayability was actually there, but it's very clear going from playing vs. AI to playing players. You get a clunky feeling game unless all conditions are perfect. I am also very confident that the "single player" is not anywhere near the quality or content level as a real single player game, which Ubisoft repeatedly claims it's a full fledged in depth game of its own(this is purely my personal opinion, and I would be very happy to be proven wrong on release day).

The people defending this game have sworn up and down "it's beta, there's going to be so much to do come release!". I believe these people have been deceived. Again, I would love to be wrong...but I'de consider myself a fool to expect more given the history of Ubisoft (and other AAA companies).

While some of the people working on the game may love it, the bottom line comes down to business. The short-sightedness of the decision makers of Ubisoft seem to always compromise the games solely for the numbers difference on paper. No consideration is given for longevity. It's all about the quick $$. The people making those decisions will always trump the developers ideas which would make an actual long lasting good game.

At a $60 price tag, dedicated servers should be there. I believe without dedicated servers, and the little content that will be available at release, that this is a $30 game at best. Steep was another extremely overpriced title.

For me, the mechanics are there. I would likely pay $60 for the multiplayer replayability if it wasn't ruined by a clunky P2P system. When it works it's great....but when it doesnt, which is far too often.....nope.

At least Blizzard is commited to their titles. Ubisoft should just stay making single player games only.

I wish it wasn't like this. I really really do. I'm usually the optimist of my group about these things, but I'm not a fool. This games longevity is of no concern to Ubisoft.

DeaIman
02-11-2017, 02:57 AM
I think the longevity of their games were lost in the early 2000's, after that they just dropped it all and went on to push out as many games as possible regardless of quality.

And it isn't just the actual netcode itself that is at fault either, there's so many silly design decisions like staring at a loading screen since we have to wait for the player with the slowest computer to finish loading. This can take a really long time in some cases, why not just spawn us and let us run around or something? It's like watching paint dry.

Really I just think Ubisoft need to ditch this Anvil engine altogether, it has shown over and over again that it simply is not up to snuff when it comes to multiplayer.

rocks.cl
02-11-2017, 03:17 AM
Even warframe, a free to play game coop focused with 1% pvp population, has a better solution for their pvp hosting, ubisoft is being cheap and greedy with this, no one should pay for this heap of lag

Juuudass
02-11-2017, 03:34 AM
I canceled my gold preorder aswell, i already saw the p2p that ubisoft is using and it seemed good on paper, on reality it sucks didnt work for me as they said on open beta.
Its a pity that they throw a good game like this because they dont want to add dedicated servers to save money.
Awesome game with bad matches because p2p another idea that ubisoft throw to the trashcan because they dont want to expend money, the day that they add dedicated servers i will buy it for sure.

bears5455
02-11-2017, 04:09 AM
NEVER take someone else's opinion on a game before YOU try it. So if you were not able to get a Beta code, rent it first. Don't just NOT buy the game cause this guy said so... Construct your OWN opinions based on your experiences... don't be a casualty of GROUP think!!

SnW-Heartbreak1
02-11-2017, 04:36 AM
The real problem is that you SHOULD NOT MAKE TESTS 5 DAYS BEFORE RELEASE! jeez, you need to make at least 10 betas over a year before the game is ready to launch but... well it's Ubisoft, sadly this company is the one that is releasing most of the games lately, yet don't get me wrong, my money will go to Mass Effect Andromeda, and I'll be uninstalling The Division as well since they screw the things up again with 1.6

Zevram86
02-11-2017, 05:19 AM
This seems to be a recurring theme for Ubisoft games; They make absolutely stunning games, they are fun, they are interesting, but when it comes to Servers or Online aspects for their games they cheap out and drop the ball EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

Why is this? Why does a company makes awesome multiplayer games and then not even support the backend for these games to flourish and grow into a community. It really feels like they care more about box sales than actually creating a repeat consumer base, which is baffling in today's day and age where return customers are more money than trying to entice new customers.

GewaltSam
02-11-2017, 05:32 AM
For me, aside from some hiccups, the game runs very smooth netcode-wise. Drop-in and out works flawless as of this beta, I don't seem to have laggy opponents (never had in 3 tests/betas), there's no funny stuff with hits not registering or hits out of the blue, enemies at the wrong position or similar; and I could go on. To be fair, I live in a first world country not too far from a big network junction, and I got a good cable connection with open NAT and dual stack (if you don't know what that means, I have an IPv6 and also still an IPv4, which solves a lot of network problems people have these days especially in gaming).

If you don't like the netcode, or if it doesn't work for you, too bad. Seems like this great game is not for you, see you around next triple A blockbuster. But I have to say that's still a strange reason to not play a game, IF it works for you. If it doesn't, I can guarantee you that it does for a lot of others.

I, myself, pre-ordered a few days ago, and I sure won't cancel that.

Zevram86
02-11-2017, 05:36 AM
For me, aside from some hiccups, the game runs very smooth netcode-wise. Drop-in and out works flawless as of this beta, I don't seem to have laggy opponents (never had in 3 tests/betas), there's no funny stuff with hits not registering or hits out of the blue, enemies at the wrong position or similar; and I could go on. To be fair, I live in a first world country not too far from a big network junction, and I got a good cable connection with open NAT and dual stack (if you don't know what that means, I have an IPv6 and also still an IPv4, which solves a lot of network problems people have these days especially in gaming).

If you don't like the netcode, or if it doesn't work for you, too bad. Seems like this great game is not for you, see you around next triple A blockbuster. But I have to say that's still a strange reason to not play a game, IF it works for you. If it doesn't, I can guarantee you that it does for a lot of others.

I, myself, pre-ordered a few days ago, and I sure won't cancel that.

"TLDR Game works fine for me, I don't know why you people are complaining because it doesn't for you?"

Thanks for your valued input champ.

Fa3r.
02-11-2017, 05:42 AM
For me, aside from some hiccups, the game runs very smooth netcode-wise. Drop-in and out works flawless as of this beta, I don't seem to have laggy opponents (never had in 3 tests/betas), there's no funny stuff with hits not registering or hits out of the blue, enemies at the wrong position or similar; and I could go on. To be fair, I live in a first world country not too far from a big network junction, and I got a good cable connection with open NAT and dual stack (if you don't know what that means, I have an IPv6 and also still an IPv4, which solves a lot of network problems people have these days especially in gaming).

If you don't like the netcode, or if it doesn't work for you, too bad. Seems like this great game is not for you, see you around next triple A blockbuster. But I have to say that's still a strange reason to not play a game, IF it works for you. If it doesn't, I can guarantee you that it does for a lot of others.

I, myself, pre-ordered a few days ago, and I sure won't cancel that.

You are the rare breed friend. I'm glad everything works perfect for you, but there are numerous people who are having issues. What you went on about in the second paragraph was a lot of uneccessary and assumption-based babble. P2P does not belong in a fighting game any way it is attempted to be sugar coated. The examples of this failed system for this type of game are numerous.

A lot of us love and want to play the game. While there are people who are attacking the game with unconstructive nonsense, these are very very real issues. There is no room for words like "too bad", "it's not for you". That's nonsense if the game really wants to succeed rather than just put +$'s on paper.

GewaltSam
02-11-2017, 06:03 AM
A lot of us love and want to play the game. While there are people who are attacking the game with unconstructive nonsense, these are very very real issues. There is no room for words like "too bad", "it's not for you". That's nonsense if the game really wants to succeed rather than just put +$'s on paper.

But you DO know that P2P can actually be faster than a dedicated server model, which adds another layer and thus more lag to the networking?

I mean, I am not a professional IT guy, but I watched multiplayer and online gaming grow and flourish since the early beginnings, dozens of self-organized LAN parties with 50-200 people and all. I hear a lot of complaining about P2P in this forums, and people who explain in detail why these days it HAS to be a dedicated server model. I could explain a bit why that is not generally right, but I did that a few times now in these forums. If you believe that P2P is - generally speaking - worse than dedicated, to be honest, I don't want to waste time explaining it again. BUT, if you really want to learn something new, do some research about the different models. There is pro and con in both, and there's a lot of pro for p2p in fighting games especially.
You probably won't believe me though, or give me again the arguments how you want a competitive atmosphere, this is unbearable, blablabla. That's why I wrote "too bad". I am sick of the same arguments over and over again from people who honestly don't have too much of a plan about the topic. You THINK you know what you want, but in reality, you don't know Jack. No offense.

Tillo.
02-11-2017, 06:11 AM
If it's so great why R6 switched from p2p to dedicated servers?
How on earth do you find satisfying a game that pauses every freaking time someone disconnects. Pardon my french but I am starting to lose my temper over this stupid thing.

Fa3r.
02-11-2017, 06:14 AM
But you DO know that P2P can actually be faster than a dedicated server model, which adds another layer and thus more lag to the networking?

I mean, I am not a professional IT guy, but I watched multiplayer and online gaming grow and flourish since the early beginnings, dozens of self-organized LAN parties with 50-200 people and all. I hear a lot of complaining about P2P in this forums, and people who explain in detail why these days it HAS to be a dedicated server model. I could explain a bit why that is not generally right, but I did that a few times now in these forums. If you believe that P2P is - generally speaking - worse than dedicated, to be honest, I don't want to waste time explaining it again. BUT, if you really want to learn something new, do some research about the different models. There is pro and con in both, and there's a lot of pro for p2p in fighting games especially.
You probably won't believe me though, or give me again the arguments how you want a competitive atmosphere, this is unbearable, blablabla. That's why I wrote "too bad". I am sick of the same arguments over and over again from people who honestly don't have too much of a plan about the topic. You THINK you know what you want, but in reality, you don't know Jack. No offense.

You talk a lot.

Here's the deal without all the wall of text.

P2P in theory would work great in a PERFECT INFRASTRUCTURE. You seem to like capitalization for emphasis so maybe that will be clear. We do not exist in a perfect infrastructure, far from it in fact. In a LAN setting P2P will be fantastic. On the scale of this game, NO. You are wrong.

Knight_Gregor
02-11-2017, 06:23 AM
You talk a lot.

Here's the deal without all the wall of text.

P2P in theory would work great in a PERFECT INFRASTRUCTURE. You seem to like capitalization for emphasis so maybe that will be clear. We do not exist in a perfect infrastructure, far from it in fact. In a LAN setting P2P will be fantastic. On the scale of this game, NO. You are wrong.

You're wasting your time dealing with the sympathizers. Some people want to argue just for the sake of arguing.

Anyone that thinks Ubisoft made this infrastructural decision for any reason other than a monetary one is delusional. No offense.

Flello
02-11-2017, 06:49 AM
Peer to peer (from my expirenece), usually benefits one player (the host). Which was absolutely crazy in the Gears of War 2 days. Thankfully, In this game it's not much of a disadvantage, but rather an inconvenience if one or several players decide to leave the game. It interrupts the flow of combat and can be extremely frustrating to all other players. It's definitely not the way to go, especially in today's gaming industry. Every major gaming development company/publisher has a dedicated server system to ensure fair play, I honestly have no idea why this is remotely considered acceptable anymore.

Tenmar
02-11-2017, 07:38 AM
Peer to peer (from my expirenece), usually benefits one player (the host). Which was absolutely crazy in the Gears of War 2 days. Thankfully, In this game it's not much of a disadvantage, but rather an inconvenience if one or several players decide to leave the game. It interrupts the flow of combat and can be extremely frustrating to all other players. It's definitely not the way to go, especially in today's gaming industry. Every major gaming development company/publisher has a dedicated server system to ensure fair play, I honestly have no idea why this is remotely considered acceptable anymore.

I think it should be viewed just like dedicated servers. It should be seen as a tool. I can easily see a aspiring independent developer be reliant on peer to peer. Or a game that has a small multiplayer service like up to four players. Peer to Peer in those examples make sense.

Why I am adamant and support the transition to dedicated servers for this game is how heavily Ubisoft has marketed and pushed this game and in terms of game design is one of the few games that does 3D fighting games right. This game has a lot of potential just like Rainbow 6 Siege to be a game that people will constantly stream and can build up a strong viewership.

It's all amount of player size and number of players allowed that peer to peer can be seen as the right tool for the job.

everything_
02-11-2017, 09:23 AM
Out of the ~25 or so matches I've done online (100+ offline), only had one or two issues, besides the server error when trying to find a match. Got error'd clean right out of a match, not sure who or what caused it, I mean it's a beta. But uh.. Peer-to-Peer sucks. it may be Peer to Peer For Honor Version 2.0 but it still sucks.

As much as a beta it is, I don't think it'll change. Looking at the previous games - that seems normal.

As for pre-ordering, definitely not. Buying? Nah, not yet. I like this game, I think it's interesting, it's a very fun and challenging 3D fighting game but only because it's an open beta and I am using the time to play a new game - for free. How long will this last with the minimal content / replayability and maximum repetitiveness? Take the elements of RS6's characters and their personalities, etc add some basic character customization and loot, take the $59.99 and up price tag + no-dedicated-servers Ubisoft package and apply it. That's what this game is. Unless they do something it'll just be dull in a few months time.

AveImperator85
02-11-2017, 09:40 AM
How about you don't tell me whether or not I should spend my money on something I enjoy?

Vikko2
02-11-2017, 09:50 AM
"During matches, every player runs a synchronized simulation and the game is played without any game host; all players are sending to all players what they are doing without the need of any answers from the other players thanks to the simulation. This is why our tech allows more reactivity and doesn’t have the “host advantage” problem of a traditional P2P model. When the match ends, the results are sent by all players to our arbitration service that validates its integrity. We also have other servers and systems that help us track and identify potential cheaters."

^Taken directly from the Q&A on For Honor's Online System.

Because the game runs on what they call "The Simulation", any lag players receive will be experienced by all players across the board. While it doesn't replace the capabilities of an actual server, especially with resync-ing being a huge issue, there should not be any particular player advantages and this misconception needs to stop being spread. Personally, I find no problem whatsoever with The Simulation for Duels and Brawls- but repeated leaving on death in PvP elimination matches does pose a problem.

While there are issues with it, this game will be coming with a full fledged 3-character campaign and I think a lot of people forget this- but I know a lot of people are just here for multiplayer reasons. I think this is a pretty decent solution to not having fully dedicated servers. The game excels in dueling, so in terms of the network issues people claim to have, it's by far no reason to not buy the game.

Besides, if you're one of those people who think it isn't worth the money, just buy it on sale or something eventually. There is nothing wrong with waiting for a sale or discount of some kind. There's no reason to try and 'win over' other people in an attempt to boycott a game that isn't going to change how it's networked.

Finally, as a personal opinion, I've been having a blast and it's still the open beta with very few network problems outside of Elimination, but people don't really care about personal opinions so...

SnW-Heartbreak1
02-11-2017, 10:55 AM
Let's just not mix the things...the game is absolutely great, it's fun, it's challenging, rewarding, the concept is awesome, based on the 3 classes, divided by ages fighting each other, the battle system is friendly and innovative and requieres player skill, which is totally great, the music, the graphics are good, and it seems to be more than just battling with the territory war system which we yet don't know how exactly works at the end of the month.

Now like i said in a few post up there, Ubisoft is the problem that don't really give a **** about what is going on and we have already seen this with Watchdogs, R6, The Division before, basically every single game launch by ubisoft in the last let's say.... 7 years maybe? is a complete piece of crap. Now the marketing team is absolutely genius promoting your tittles i give you that but when it comes to supporting, maintenance and customer support is another thing. Community Managers do what they can since they have no control over the game we just can wait for them to pass the problem to the right area. The tech support...oh man.. this is were things start to go wrong, for some reason it seems they are not capable of fixing their own code mistakes, server issues, and online maintenance, and ask US to fix THEIR product for them by messing up with our computers which works absolutely fine with other games that are not from Ubisoft.

Sadly most of the cool ideas for games comes up from this company and as far as the year goes by it's the only company releasing games with creative concept (yes there are a few more from others companies but not as many as from Ubi) Finishing with this post, i think the way they do the things is wrong, i'll put an example which may be a double edge sword, Bless Online by example, it's been years that it's on beta (way too many the company seems imcompetent too) before they release the game, but this maybe can cause players to get bored of the game for too many betas and ppl losing interest over the years and of course outdated graphics, now i'm not saying they should take 4 or 5 years but at least take a full year of releasing closed betas 5 or 6 maybe more, not 2 weeks before the release date making a stress test with a closed beta and 5 days before an open beta without fixing the errors the closed have like error 0006000043 or that we are unable to join a friend's invitation (i'm sure it's the new uplay overlay nobody asked for), is completely unaceptable, fix that then make a few closed betas more, and if everything runs smooth, then and only then, make an open beta at least a few months before releasing date.

YashamaruX
02-11-2017, 11:23 AM
Have to agree with the OP: whether its due to P2P or some other factor, this game has the worst connectivity of any game I have ever played. For what is basically a type of online battle arena game its just totally unacceptable. Its almost criminal that they would even sell it in this state.

Vilerin
02-11-2017, 12:18 PM
1v1 works 95% fine in match but loading times are terrible, MM takes ages to find opponent even with Open or Moderate NAT.
2v2 is fine but suffers same issues as 1 vs 1.
3v3 or more is just unplayable due to game resync every few seconds.

The worse is that my brother has very poor internet connection and best we can do is 2v2. I am unable to play with him other modes just because this is some king of P2P system and we are getting resync all the time. Considering MM problem at the moment and huge loading times this may be too much for me. I was almost sure to buy this game for me and my bro but seeing all these desyncs in 3+ players per side modes turns me off.

I do not wanna waste time in game looking for players with very good internet connection just to have couple of quality games. It's loosing half of my free gaming time just because most basic systems in the game are not working, considering multiplayer games are no longer new medium this is unacceptable.

Not to mention cursor staying on the screen all the time and other small issues.

Almost forgot to mention that I can't invite 4 friends to single game because always someone has connection issues with one of the others and is unable to joint the group.

From my perspective this network model is worse than standard P2P - in the second you can find good host (game migration is annoying but it may find decent pc with good connection after few tries) and have quality game with one/two players having poor connection when in the current state having single bad connection player causes desync/resync to all others and there is no other solution than just leave the room.

At the moment I can't imagine having more than 50% elimination games work properly, 20% is too much for me so I have gave up on elimination.

BoaDrago
02-11-2017, 01:27 PM
Yeah, peer-to-peer is long dead, sad because 2 of my friends canceled their pre-order because we found out our NATs were incompatible, sucks.

EDIT: Dedicated servers for Dominion at least

Orolinwe
02-11-2017, 02:09 PM
All I know is I have "NAT Strict" and IT'S RUINING THE GAME.


I did preorder but I WILL RETURN THE GAME if this crap is going to persist. Gigantic Ubisoft can't even put up servers when Rocket League can??? WHAT!?

kao_chen
02-11-2017, 02:20 PM
3day of beta and i can play only 1vs1 rest of modes r unplaybale. Ubi seems dont care about connection issue. And if they dont care i wont spend money for this game.

CarnivalLaw
02-12-2017, 12:17 AM
Kudos on a really well argued post.

As a Day 1 Destiny player, I have nightmares about P2P.

Devs simply cannot build competitive multiplayer PvP games using P2P connections.

blackhawk102016
02-12-2017, 12:27 AM
i have cancel all my preorders and friends have done the same for there new practice in games developing

and that is online only game no offline play

i will not support these type of practice as they should be doing games for offline play also
not everyone has a steady internet connection to play these type of games.

guest-8Dpmf0BQ
02-12-2017, 12:35 AM
The main reason to preorder this game is it ****ty as ****.

AveImperator85
02-12-2017, 12:38 AM
i have cancel all my preorders and friends have done the same for there new practice in games developing

and that is online only game no offline play

i will not support these type of practice as they should be doing games for offline play also
not everyone has a steady internet connection to play these type of games.

Then play offline games? Or get better internet. Don't criticize a company's product because YOU lack the prereqs to utilize it.

RabidUrko
02-12-2017, 12:49 AM
Then play offline games? Or get better internet. Don't criticize a company's product because YOU lack the prereqs to utilize it.

This.

Most people in the world have decent enough Broadband for 4 v 4 , any higher teams and i would be not saying this.
I used to like dedicated servers for PC years back, but times have changed and not all in PC gaming favour.

Im not going to not play a game because the server issue isnt ideal to what i would like, IF it was disconnecting every five minutes on release then i would be rethinking, but the beta has been generally smooth.

Tenmar
02-12-2017, 09:18 PM
One last bump because I'm now back where I started...

Vikko2
02-13-2017, 08:30 AM
If you think about, if a unique P2P system like The Simulation wasn't utilized, wouldn't a dedicated server NOT require synchronization? Like, it would mean your detected actions and movement would depend on how good yours or your opponents internet was, versus the shared connection between you two that sends information to each other to keep things in line?

So that would mean people with better connection would move as they normally would, and anyone who has worse internet kind of... teleport and jitter everywhere? You would have like, 30ms and the opponent would have maybe 300ms and they would teleport everywhere and your attacks may/may not count- which is the last thing I'd want to experience in a game like this, personally.

It's like if Lethal League used an official server instead of P2P for synchronization of the ball. When someone lags, the framerate in Lethal League drops so that nobody sees anything that nobody else is seeing. That kind of thing is crucial in a game like this- so if someone is lagging which causes your shared 'simulation' to lag, I have the comfort of knowing that they have it just as bad as I do.

I could see the problems of having a Dedicated server.

That, and anyone with internet that isn't good enough for the game complaining is like someone who demands they can play the game if they don't meet the system requirements. On another note, aren't network speed requirements already on the system requirements?

Mamosha_
02-13-2017, 08:39 AM
Oh my God!! P2P REALLY???? Lol. I dont care. The game is pretty good! I love it. So stop crying ;)

SnW-Heartbreak1
02-13-2017, 09:06 AM
Oh my God!! P2P REALLY???? Lol. I dont care. The game is pretty good! I love it. So stop crying ;)
It's funny how you tell us to stop crying for a broken game when you are all over The Division Forums crying for bugs to be fixed. That's called hypocrisy.

itchiebutt
02-13-2017, 09:33 AM
It's pretty annoying on For honor when playing at 1am pst you play vs dudes from other countries with 300 ping who do teleport on you... Have a couple videos myself of people who teleported around the whole time which just made me leave the match. Feels like I am playing Rainbow Six Siege with it's horrible hit detection and rubber banding peeps. For Honor is a great game but at times it does feel ruined by the peer to peer sytem. People who say stop crying or blame something else don't help the issue at all. A game has issues people don't like get over it don't be rude about it.

Waynedetta40k
02-13-2017, 09:41 AM
P2P > Bad quality servers for most of the people
Look at the ****ty CS:GO or Blade and Soul Servers that would actually ruin the game for everyone.

B3N--
02-13-2017, 10:04 AM
The real problem is that you SHOULD NOT MAKE TESTS 5 DAYS BEFORE RELEASE! jeez, you need to make at least 10 betas over a year before the game is ready to launch but... well it's Ubisoft, sadly this company is the one that is releasing most of the games lately, yet don't get me wrong, my money will go to Mass Effect Andromeda, and I'll be uninstalling The Division as well since they screw the things up again with 1.6


Keep informed before saying something...


They have done a lot of testing phase. (2 alphas / 2 technical test / 1 closed beta / 1 open beta for what i know)