Support NeoGAF

[Gbraga]

No see, this gif is fake. I didn't have any problems in the 20 million hours I've played so you must be lying plus it's a fighting game so it is fine! /every idiot in this thread who thinks their anecdotal evidence proves them right.

Maybe I'm just too much of an idiot to understand what you mean, but you can see that someone ragequit during this gif, and that's what causes the freeze and resync. The way to fix that is to fix the random disconnects and then punish people for ragequitting, both things that should absolutely be done, P2P or not. And both things I mentioned in this thread as real problems of the game, unlike the P2P netcode.

souls has more issues than for honor i find

Yeah, for sure. Just the way it fundamentally changes the mechanics because of lag, like hitboxes and parry timing, already makes it much worse than For Honor.

Ironically, it's somewhat necessary. Parrying in Souls is way too strong to be as easy online as it is offline. When Dark Souls II had an actually decent netcode and you could parry anything on reaction with the Monastery Scimitar, it was completely broken. Having it as something you need to predict rather than react balances it out.

 

[Dreavus]

I don't see lag, it looks like he's just UNLOCKED his FULL POWER.

"Heh, too slow"

 

[UserDoesNotExist]

Add me to the list of people with solid Internet connections that have had nothing but trouble playing PvP matches.

Fighting against AI seems to work, though.

I don't know how anyone can defend non-dedicated servers connecting 8 people.

 

[moai]

this is my experience with this game. thar error pops all the time and its always "reconnecting". althought someone pointed on the official thread that it might be the host disconnecting. its a shame because there is a great game under this servers mess.

 

[Roussow]

It's pretty fucked. I'm not even touching 4v4 modes, it just fucks up my NAT and kicks me to the menu. Duels have been pretty stable for me so far though, although random error messages that kick me to the main menu persist even in the story mode, which fucking sucks.

Reasonably, can we expect a patch to actually improve the games stability? (On console)

 

[Ferrio]

What is this strange opinion that P2P is fine if it's 1v1? What kind of shit logic is that? High level Quake, UT and other deathmatch games was played 1vs1 for years and P2P would never have been accepted. Dedicated servers have alwyas been the gold standard for fair and stable internet multiplayer.

Because it is. There's more lag when you have to go through a third party than directly to the person you're playing. Also you on average have better pings with players.

Say me and a friend want to play together. We live in the same town, so when it's P2P our ping will be *very* low to each other. If it's dedicated we have to connect to the server *far* from us, and even though we live right next door the ping would be way higher than it needs to be.

P2P allows you to get the best possible connection. The drawback is P2P breaks down the more people you get into a game though, that's why people are having issues with 4v4s.

Also fighting games operate differently than shooters which a lot of people are comparing it to. In shooters if you have a better ping then you'll have an advantage over people. This is unacceptable in fighting games, so the person with the lower ping has to be slowed down OR there has to be some sort of rollback. This would have to happen whether P2P or dedicated, so even if this was dedicated you'd still see those "I hit him, but oh wait he didn't take damage" stuff when playing people with questionable connections.

I think a lot of the issues right now could be resolved if there was a real quitter penalty. Host migration is the biggest gripe, but if people were punished for actually rage quitting we'd see a lot less flux of people in matches.

 

[Slackbladder]

P2P? Doe this mean people can inject some cheat and it'll work? Or is that all covered in the code?

 

[VeteranGamer]

Do people really use a lag switch?

 

[FantasticMrFoxdie]

ya blew it

 

[Roussow]

I think a lot of the issues right now could be resolved if there was a real quitter penalty. Host migration is the biggest gripe, but if people were punished for actually rage quitting we'd see a lot less flux of people in matches.

I honestly think at this point that would make things worse -- considering that frequent disconnects are occurring devoid of host migration, so there would be an absurd amount of unjust punishments. Obviously punishing leavers is a great idea, but fucking no way should this happen in the games current state.

 

[Strakt]

Do people really use a lag switch?

Not really; the chances you'll encounter someone actually using it are slim to none.

 

[Sora the Cat]

Well that's one game I'm not buying then.

 

[Zanzura]

Because it is. There's more lag when you have to go through a third party than directly to the person you're playing. Also you on average have better pings with players.

Say me and a friend want to play together. We live in the same town, so when it's P2P our ping will be *very* low to each other. If it's dedicated we have to connect to the server *far* from us, and even though we live right next door the ping would be way higher than it needs to be.

P2P allows you to get the best possible connection. P2P breaks down the more people you get into a game though, that's why people are having issues with 4v4s.

I think a lot of the issues right now could be resolved if there was a real quitter penalty. Host migration is the biggest issue, but if people were punished for actually rage quitting we'd see a lot less flux of people in matches.

This makes no sense. When it comes to competitive online matches, especially since the person you quoted is talking about Quake/UT where it's always been preferable to use a centralized server to even out the latency between players. With P2P 1 player is always going to be host and therefore there's a higher chance of there being a huge disparity in latency unless both players live close to each other. In the case of this game with its 4vs4 modes, it's unacceptable to use P2P for those types of matches.

 

[Strakt]

This makes no sense. When it comes to competitive online matches, especially since the person you quoted is talking about Quake/UT where it's always been preferable to use a centralized server to even out the latency between players. With P2P 1 player is always going to be host and therefore there's a higher chance of there being a huge disparity in latency unless both players live close to each other. In the case of this game with its 4vs4 modes, it's unacceptable to use P2P for those types of matches.

P2P is fine for 1 v 1 and possibly 2 v 2, but 4 v 4 is where they should get dedicated servers.

 

[Ferrio]

This makes no sense. When it comes to competitive online matches, especially since the person you quoted is talking about Quake/UT where it's always been preferable to use a centralized server to even out the latency between players. With P2P 1 player is always going to be host and therefore there's a higher chance of there being a huge disparity in latency unless both players live close to each other. In the case of this game with its 4vs4 modes, it's unacceptable to use P2P for those types of matches.

Good match making will try and pair up people close together. If the servers are hosted on the west coast you're always going to have to connect to it. P2P allows you to connect to people closer to you than that, so you're not always stuck with having to connect to a far away server.

Either way like I said, even if this was dedicated you'd still see those rollback problems in the video. People don't understand that fighters need to have slow down or rollback to be fair, you cannot let a player have an advantage because they have a better ping.

There's two issues presented in that video. Host migration is indeed bullshit, 4v4 needs to have dedicated servers to solve that (or harsh leaving penalties). But the parts were there's lag is always going to happen, because that's the fundemental design of fighting games. Getting dedicated servers will not fix that.

 

[Uthred]

i always said that the Beta is exactly the same as the full game and many don't believe me

this is a lesson learned the hard way to those who bought it

there is no such thing as " it's just a Beta, they will fix it in the full game" especially when the beta is like 1 month or less before the game releases

Well, I'd no connection issues in the beta and none with the full release, so what lesson did I learn?

 

[gossi]

For info, on PS4 in EU I'm seeing all kinds of peer to peer issues. The biggest one is the host quitting mid game - sometimes the migration fails.

 

[Kilrogg]

Smelling another "Oh Ubisoft!" segment coming from dear old Jimbo!

 

[killroy87]

I love the game to bits, but yeah, the connection issues are easily the most glaring problem. Almost every single match has my connection being interrupted (maybe less so with 1v1, but literally every single dominion), and hard disconnects are way more common than I'd like.

 

[demogorgon]

It's a shame all the companies haven't jumped on board.
MS, EA, and Blizzard(yes i know owned by activision) all give servers on their games
Ubisoft, Sony, and Activsion don't.

Hell even games like evolve, and rocket league ahve dedicated servers. It's BS that huge companies like Ubisoft, Sony, and Activsion refuse to have them. especially when the cost is so small. I mean how many games does sony have that would need servers? (TLOU:R, UC4, KZ, DC) 4 games? that barely have any playerbase online anyway. Activision has a bunch of CoD games, and ubsoft has rainbow 6 siege and for honor. so a combined 8-9 games.

 

[ErrorMacro]

I just want to add that some of those lag battles actually look (as in visually), pretty cool. One guy teleporting around, like some psychic warrior, and suddenly stabbing the other in the back looks like something from a movie.

Must suck for the players though. P2P is really shitty, especially in countries where the internet is not great.

 

[Strakt]

I just want to add that some of those lag battles actually look (as in visually), pretty cool. One guy teleporting around, like some psychic warrior, and suddenly stabbing the other in the back looks like something from a movie.

best post in this thread

 

[DrkSage]

The issues I've had with for honor is not that I've been "kicked" out of the game. Yes I've gotten network error 4-5 times since release.

The real issues to me are:

As soon as the match starts, my opponent/s gets replaced by a bot/a

How matchmaking is handles

How creating parties and parties are handled

 

[Gbraga]

With P2P 1 player is always going to be host

This is not how it works.

 

[Izuna]

I'm scared to even turn this game on tbh...

Bought it for my nephew and like... I don't want to get into a game that's super competitive and still P2P

 

[HappehLemons]

This is not how it works.

How does it work? I would say the same thing.

 

[Cleve]

Yeah, p2p is fine for 1v1 games, but that's not what I was interested in the game for, or how ubi pushed it. The 4v4 mode is more popular, and it's not simply a matter of people levelling up for 1v1s. That's the casual mode, and it's what ubi realized more people would be interested in. The game struggles with that mode on an infrequent but really frustrating basis.

The game's netcode is mediocre at best, and it deserves getting the shit it does. MKX got flak for it's netcode for a long time for good reason. Except with for honor there's no simple local 1v1 mode to play without lag(that I'm aware of).

I didn't pick it up after my experiences in the late beta. I'm still interested, but waiting to see if it takes UBI as long to address this game's issues as it took them with the division.

 

[SpiceMelange]

How does it work? I would say the same thing.

In a p2p implemention everything is decentralized, there is no hosts and game state is synchronized by everyone in the network. Most people confuse listen servers (CoD player hosting for example) with P2P.

 

[hampig]

I must be one of the lucky few, because I've had maybe 1 issue in my 7 hours of 2v2 and 1v1s. 4v4 I had some of the host leaving junk, but 4v4 is terrible anyways.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

I feel lucky because I haven't experienced any of the lag stuff in the video. I have experienced the error screen way too damn often though along with the reconnection stuff. They need to figure that stuff out because the game is amazing otherwise.

 

[Strakt]

I feel lucky because I haven't experienced any of the lag stuff in the video. I have experienced the error screen way too damn often though along with the reconnection stuff. They need to figure that stuff out because the game is amazing otherwise.

A majority of users haven't experienced what the video showcases (not that problems don't exist). The video is just trying to create controversy for views in the most dramatic way possible.

 

[Zanzura]

Good match making will try and pair up people close together. If the servers are hosted on the west coast you're always going to have to connect to it. P2P allows you to connect to people closer to you than that, so you're not always stuck with having to connect to a far away server.

Either way like I said, even if this was dedicated you'd still see those rollback problems in the video. People don't understand that fighters need to have slow down or rollback to be fair, you cannot let a player have an advantage because they have a better ping.

There's two issues presented in that video. Host migration is indeed bullshit, 4v4 needs to have dedicated servers to solve that (or harsh leaving penalties). But the parts were there's lag is always going to happen, because that's the fundemental design of fighting games. Getting dedicated servers will not fix that.

Having dedicated servers would make East vs West matches viable in NA if servers are located in the Central US/Canada area with both players from each side having ~75ms latency which if it's acceptable by Quake/UT/CS standards it should be for this game. I see no reason why For Honor can't be the same or even follow in the footsteps of other games where both Dedicated/P2P are available options. Gears of War 2 and 3 had a system where if all the dedicated servers are full, P2P would be used. For Honor could do the same with the added option for players to opt-in to dedicated servers or not. As it is now with P2P matchmaking which works for the most part in 1vs1 scenarios, you get bullshit that can happen in the video with flaky connections affecting other players severely along with the rare case of lag switching or other user-manipulation. Lag is always going to be an issue in any online game, but it doesn't have to be disproportionately bad for one side.

Say for example someone in Central US/Canada decides to 2vs2 or 4vs4. Matchmaking decides they're an ideal host as the rest of the players are located in both the east and west coasts so it should result in a fairly even match when it comes to latency. Well if something happens to the host such as a power/connection outage, sudden spike of lag or packet loss the east and west coast players are fucked and either deal with the now objectively worse connection even after host migration should it occur. Either the players bear with it, or quit and find a new match. Implementing a quitter penalty would make the latter a very unappealing option depending on the severity.

Dedicated or P2P doesn't have to be mutually exclusive, give the players the option for both, especially for PC. Seriously, the fact there's no dedicated servers player-owned or official on PC at all is a fucking joke. P2P matchmaking is great for regional/localized multiplayer but severely limits the player base and removes options for people who want to play an equal conditions match with others on the other side of a country.

This is not how it works.

Care to provide a source detailing how For Honor's P2P system works? A quick search found this article that basically amounts to, "it's P2P but different" whatever the fuck that means.

 

[Gbraga]

Care to provide a source detailing how For Honor's P2P system works? A quick search found this article that basically amounts to, "it's P2P but different" whatever the fuck that means.

It's not necessarily For Honor, it's just basic P2P, you don't have a host at 0 lag and someone else lagged in Fighting Games either, you both suffer through the shitty connection.

But there's this video on For Honor's netcode, specifically, and how it applies that even to its 4v4 matches: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAU5bIalbnc

 

[Ferrio]

. As it is now with P2P matchmaking which works for the most part in 1vs1 scenarios, you get bullshit that can happen in the video with flaky connections affecting other players severely along with the rare case of lag switching or other user-manipulation.

The same thing would happen in dedicated because if someone lags, the server would have to compensate for it. This isn't a shooter where if someone lags it only affects them, it's a fighting game where each player has to be in sync at the same time. If someone lags there has to be some rollback, slowdown or something to prevent the person who isn't lagging from having an advantage.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

Care to provide a source detailing how For Honor's P2P system works? A quick search found this article that basically amounts to, "it's P2P but different" whatever the fuck that means.

The short answer is in regular P2P, one player is the host. That gives that one player an advantage as the host. For Honor on the other hand uses a P2P system where everyone shares host duties. The upside is no one has host advantage, but the downside is every player has a different ping against every other player. I'm trying to find the video that explains it better/more thoroughly.

EDIT:

But there's this video on For Honor's netcode, specifically, and how it applies that even to its 4v4 matches: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAU5bIalbnc

That's the one.

Normal P2P:

For Honor's P2P:

 

[Gbraga]

The short answer is in regular P2P, one player is the host. That gives that one player an advantage as the host. For Honor on the other hand uses a P2P system where everyone shares host duties. The upside is no one has host advantage, but the downside is every player has a different ping against every other player. I'm trying to find the video that explains it better/more thoroughly.

EDIT:

That's the one.

Yeah, there are obvious issues with this implementation, like the disconnects fucking everything up, but don't forget that this quote chain started with someone claiming it's no good even for 1v1s, which makes no sense.

 

[Pop]

Well that's one game I'm not buying then.

You're missing out. All because of one dudes edited video.

It's not anywhere near this bad. Since launch I've had a handful of disconnects but no lag issues. Could it be better, sure. But it's not that horrible as the video would lead you to believe.

 

[Gaz_RB]

Wow this is pretty blatant disinformation. Game is nowhere near this bad 99% of the time.

 

[Panther2103]

In the beginning I was disconnecting at the end of almost every match. It tends to happen the most when someone either disconnects or rage quits and it tries to switch hosts, to someone who really shouldn't be hosting, and then it drops connection.

Lag itself though on PC at least, has been extremely minimal. I haven't encountered one instance of rubber banding or anything like that. Just a lot of disconnects. My NAT is open as well, and shows up as green in game so I know it can't be me.

 

[Ginger Hail]

I've never experienced anything as bad as the worst that vid showed off, but I've had some server/disconnection errors. There's definitely a few changes that need to be made, namely leaver penalties and switching all the 4v4 modes over to dedicated servers.

 

[Tecnniqe]

The short answer is in regular P2P, one player is the host. That gives that one player an advantage as the host. For Honor on the other hand uses a P2P system where everyone shares host duties. The upside is no one has host advantage, but the downside is every player has a different ping against every other player. I'm trying to find the video that explains it better/more thoroughly.

EDIT:

That's the one.

Normal P2P:


For Honor's P2P:

Image is wrong as he does state that everyone can see each others WAN address too, so the negative list is not complete compared to negatives in traditional P2P.

 

[NHale]

People use a lag switch?

Someone used one against me while I was trying a F2P game called Battle Islands Commanders which is basically a very basic card game ala Hearthstone. As soon as I was getting control, the connection went jittery and I wasn't able to call any card while he could anything he wanted. Yes if they use it for such a pathetic game, I'm sure they use it in more mainstream games.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

Image is wrong as he does state that everyone can see each others WAN address too, so the negative list is not complete compared to negatives in traditional P2P.

I might have capped it too early. The points were being added to the left as he discussed them.

 

[Zanzura]

It's not necessarily For Honor, it's just basic P2P, you don't have a host at 0 lag and someone else lagged in Fighting Games either, you both suffer through the shitty connection.

But there's this video on For Honor's netcode, specifically, and how it applies that even to its 4v4 matches: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAU5bIalbnc

So I watched that video, and I don't see how anyone can conclusively say that it's better than dedicated or preferred other than the fact it saves Ubisoft a bunch of money. It's also just a preliminary test so it's too early to say it's definitively better/worse without further testing. There's a lot of unknowns and the images posted by GuitarAtomik neglect to show the questions raised by this setup such as what happens if any of those clients manipulate their connection in any way or have other issues such as weak hardware (PC) or packet loss, ping spikes, shit wi-fi, etc. There's also the issue with it having a ~100 ms base delay on every action which isn't great and this is done with both clients having 1ms of latency to each other. I can only imagine what the delay is like on consoles with the lower frame-rate and other factors impacting overall input latency. That said, the better player should win the majority of the time but inconsistencies like these can frustrate any player over time. There's also the issue of security and people pulling shit like this. Lagswitchers and the like may be rare now since the playerbase is pretty strong as it typically is early in a multiplayer game's life, but if there's one thing consistent about them is that they enjoy trolling people so if it goes unchecked it'll become a problem down the line. Especially as the playerbase dwindles through new releases or just plain frustration if the exploit isn't addressed.

I'll just end with this: It'd be nice if there were dedicated servers provided officially or rented by the consumers along with the system in place now to make everyone happy. Especially for the PC crowd where most MP games worth a damn have dedicated servers. It doesn't look good PR wise either when other AAA companies like Electronic Arts and Activision-Blizzard have dedicated servers for some of their own big releases and Ubisoft stands out with their micro-transactions and non-listen server P2P system that has the taint of what looks to be an issue to your security.

 

[Xaero Gravity]

Outside of a few people quitting mid game and resulting in a quick pause, I haven't had any issues with the P2P connections.

A majority of users haven't experienced what the video showcases (not that problems don't exist). The video is just trying to create controversy for views in the most dramatic way possible.

So your standard CrowbCat video?

 

[SeeNoWeevil]

That's the one.

Normal P2P:

*le sigh*

That is not P2P. It even says 'Client As Host' on the image. In P2P, all clients are equal, there is no host.

 

[base shagohod]

Personally, I've seen the teleporting thing once in about 10 hrs with the game, and I've played all the modes.
Disconnects and host migration are the worst though and really need to be fixed.

Also lol at people saying this isn't a fighting game. The number of players don't dictate the genre, yo.