P2P is broken

I fully agree with the OP in that the instancing in this game is a huge problem which is letting down the game and is seriously flawed when one considers this is supposed to be a multiplayer game. Each time this comes up I see the same people talking about networking and router setups - which clearly isn't the issue in my own experience and its an odd defence given a computer game should generally just work out of the box. I can assure everyone that my ports are forwarded perfectly and I've had continuous problems with instancing, it even being impossible at times to send a text to someone on my friends list.

On several occasions recently whilst in a Wing saw zero players at the busiest hub in the game during peak hours on a weekend. Prior to winging up there was a bunch of players hanging about that area.

The system is broken its as simple as that.

You can't even guarantee a single player game will work out of the box for every player because you can't guarantee hardware. On PC at least, you can on consoles or Macs, but even then you can't be held responsible for hardware faults. Players routers are out of the devs' hands and in a great many cases, it's often out of the players' hands too, at least the default settings are and changing them is often beyond the user.

Show me an online multiplayer game that doesn't have something about router/network settings in their support section.
 
Last edited:
Personally I find it annoying that networking hasn't moved on in 20 years.
Quake was released in 1996, that had 64 players maps and allowed 64 players to play together (the first fps to do so).
Today we are still limited to 64 players max in even the most advanced games - that sucks big time.

I played Dark Age of Camelot and Rift, both of which allowed more, but when you had more everything fell apart and the framerate dropped into oblivion.

I don't think ED is the problem, it's networking in general.
I also work in IT support :)

Added:
Just remembered Eve had a good solution to the problem - when there was that massive battle that made the news (1000+ players I think?), they slowed the game down so it could cope.
That's not going to work in ED clearly, but I think that's the only way.
 
Last edited:
Personally I find it annoying that networking hasn't moved on in 20 years.
Quake was released in 1996, that had 64 players maps and allowed 64 players to play together (the first fps to do so).
Today we are still limited to 64 players max in even the most advanced games - that sucks big time.

I played Dark Age of Camelot and Rift, both of which allowed more, but when you had more everything fell apart and the framerate dropped into oblivion.

I don't think ED is the problem, it's networking in general.
I also work in IT support :)

Added:
Just remembered Eve had a good solution to the problem - when there was that massive battle that made the news (1000+ players I think?), they slowed the game down so it could cope.
That's not going to work in ED clearly, but I think that's the only way.

Well it would be nice if people didn't play games over wifi but its a dream to have 64 players per instance in ED. Right now lucky if I ever see more than half a dozen in once instance. They've nickle and dimed the networking and its why the system is so poor.
 
Fault or not, I don't mind telling you I shared a few choice words over Skype about the difficulties a wing of friends and I had getting the fourth member into our 'instance' last week...

<humour> PS. How come I can't use the internet while my modem's not plugged in? I thought the internet was wireless? :( </humour>

Hard to believe no one posted this yet

https://youtu.be/iDbyYGrswtg

It seems that the elders of the internet don't like current wings implementation. :D
 
It is frustrating at times but P2P appears to be a fundamental part of the game design and it seems unlikely that will change due to the apparently huge cost of doing so. It's not like asking FD to change the speed limit or something - it has real financial consequences.

Perhaps CQC or whatever it's called is the closest people will get to a compromise - something separate from the main game that provides a better environment for competition and PVP.
 
It is frustrating at times but P2P appears to be a fundamental part of the game design and it seems unlikely that will change due to the apparently huge cost of doing so. It's not like asking FD to change the speed limit or something - it has real financial consequences.

Perhaps CQC or whatever it's called is the closest people will get to a compromise - something separate from the main game that provides a better environment for competition and PVP.

Well people keep saying this without presenting any evidence to the actual costs.. I'd like to see an analysis on this. How much bandwidth does the game use per hour for typical use? Whats the average play time for the present user base each week or month? We can then estimate the cost of ED running on an architecture that works properly compared against what we have now which is extremely poor.

When all is said and done there is ultimately a cost of the game appearing to be broken from a networking pov. Anyhow ArenaNet seems to do alright.
 
Last edited:
Well people keep saying this without presenting any evidence to the actual costs.. I'd like to see an analysis on this. How much bandwidth does the game use per hour for typical use? Whats the average play time for the present user base each week or month? We can then estimate the cost of ED running on an architecture that works properly compared against what we have now which is extremely poor.

When all is said and done there is ultimately a cost of the game appearing to be broken from a networking pov. Anyhow ArenaNet seems to do alright.

Yes - to be honest I'm just parroting the costs thing from what I've seen other people say (that's what the internets are for innit?) but I believe it means they need fewer servers using less bandwidth with P2P doing the donkey work between players than if they have the same number of players doing everything client/server.

Plus there would presumably be a re-design cost to change to all client/server.
 
Well people keep saying this without presenting any evidence to the actual costs.. I'd like to see an analysis on this. How much bandwidth does the game use per hour for typical use? Whats the average play time for the present user base each week or month? We can then estimate the cost of ED running on an architecture that works properly compared against what we have now which is extremely poor.

When all is said and done there is ultimately a cost of the game appearing to be broken from a networking pov. Anyhow ArenaNet seems to do alright.

sadly that will be wasted time... the decisions are far above any one in this thread.... so demanding such ... is, rightly, likely to be ignored

perhaps you would be better served mowing the lawn, tidying your bedroom or just playing ED
 
Can ED even be technically called an MMO? Last I checked, 16 players in an instance doing a thing is an aspect that described just normal multiplayer online games. That massively aspect comes from the persistence and the scale of the player space.

Yes, because an MMO is where lots of players connect to a game world - not each other. Hence games like Robocraft, World of Tanks, Mechwarrior Online are all classed as MMOs.
(Not saying I agree with it, but in a technical sense ED fits MMO just fine)

Wikipedia;
A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet. MMOs usually have at least one persistent world, however some games differ.

Oxford English Dictionary (Online);
An online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously .

In 1.2 we could through some massaging of the mechanics get good battles of 24 to 32 players. Now it is impossible. What more is, just getting a single wing in an instance is a struggle.

Nevermind trying to chase an opponent from normal space into supercruise, chances are, he's gone. In another instance.

Through back-channels I've gotten notion that through ninja-nerf, the instancing have been reduced from a max of 32 down to 16...

I mean really, is this now what this supposed MMO is, pandering only to single wings with no organized PvP?

I am sick and tired of the limitations of the current P2P system. It hinders all kinds of organized effort. And the problem is just made worse by PowerPlay. How is one supposed to fight ghosts in Solo, group and god forbid Xbone in order to achive a Powers goals for a given cycle? I am sorry, but tilting at windmills is not fun. This need change. Soon.

Give us MASSIVE instances - put some dedicated servers to the task. As an added bonus, it would kill cheats pretty fast. Yes, it will cost, but that could be distributed by letting player-groups have the ability to rent dedicated instancing servers that would cover a given number of systems for instance. P2P is fine for the not very populated outback of the galaxy, but for the central hubs of activity, not so much.

Anything would be better than the current disaster that is the P2P model with regards to well player-populated areas. As it is now, it ruins the game for a lot of us.

Dear me, where to start on this.

Most players do not "massage" game mechanics, so if there has been a reduction in player cap per instance island - very few would even notice it (related to the following reasons).

Chasing someone is done through their wake, which overrides the random matchmaking / instance system and places you in to their instance island - if they are gone by the time you get in to their wake, you were either too slow and they have jumped out of the system or they logged out (and possibly back in to spawn another instance or used Groups / Solo to get away from you).

A "single wing" is 4 players - so how would a change from 32, to 16 pander to a "single wing"? Last time I checked, 16 by 4 was 4. So 4 wings can fit in to one instance island (as for MMO, see above).

Power Play has nothing to do with PvP in a direct combat way - it is done through the Powers Prep/Expand and Fortify system. It was not designed to promote PvP. This is a PvE game with the ability to PvP, not a PvP game - big difference.

As for the P2P system, it is fine for the purpose it was chosen - this is not EVE Online and it is not a pew pew gank fest COD. There is a reason fast paced games do not have "massive" instances or tons of players in one area (EVEs time dilatation does not work for fast paced action games - hence would not work here). Also a Client/Server set up requires a lot of money to maintain - don't see you opening your wallet, so you're stuck with cheap and cheerful.

Define "a lot of us" - PvP crowds have always been a minority in mixed PvE / PvP games. Forum users are less than 10% of the overall player base, so vocal PvP players on game forums are what? 1% of the total player base, less than 1% maybe?
The game has sold over 600,000 copies. The forums total user base, for FD entire game forums (as more than ED is covered by these forums) is under 100,000 registered users spread out over 12 games. This does not filter out those who have alts.
And as far as I know, you speak for you and no one else - the game may be ruined for YOU, but other people are able to speak for themselves - don't presume you speak for an entire demographic. I like the game the way it is.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
In the last MMO I played there was a manual way to switch instances, ED just needs the same thing. What's funny, that game was server-based and had almost the same issues, the % guy can call it HTTP based :) Let's see how long it would take FDev to reinvent this particular wheel.

This is the part that I am also wary about. Is there any guarantee that by eventually switching to a server based architecture all problems will be gone?
 
Last edited:
Well people keep saying this without presenting any evidence to the actual costs.. I'd like to see an analysis on this. How much bandwidth does the game use per hour for typical use? Whats the average play time for the present user base each week or month? We can then estimate the cost of ED running on an architecture that works properly compared against what we have now which is extremely poor.

When all is said and done there is ultimately a cost of the game appearing to be broken from a networking pov. Anyhow ArenaNet seems to do alright.
One can do it yourself.
Use Wireshark : http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wireshark-1...8&sr=1-30&keywords=wireshark+network+analysis

There are other tools, lots of them, for network monitoring etc.
Go to it!:)

- - - Updated - - -

This is the part that I am also wary about. Is there any guarantee that by eventually switching to a server based architecture all problems will be gone?
None whatsoever!
As we all know!
 
Personally I find it annoying that networking hasn't moved on in 20 years.
Quake was released in 1996, that had 64 players maps and allowed 64 players to play together (the first fps to do so).
Today we are still limited to 64 players max in even the most advanced games - that sucks big time.

I played Dark Age of Camelot and Rift, both of which allowed more, but when you had more everything fell apart and the framerate dropped into oblivion.

I don't think ED is the problem, it's networking in general.
I also work in IT support :)

Added:
Just remembered Eve had a good solution to the problem - when there was that massive battle that made the news (1000+ players I think?), they slowed the game down so it could cope.
That's not going to work in ED clearly, but I think that's the only way.

Have you heard of Planetside 2? I think they have a really high player cap.
 
Have you heard of Planetside 2? I think they have a really high player cap.

Yes they do, now care to list all the problems they have?

I loved PS, until the battle frames killed it. As soon as PS2 came out, I was right on it.... and right off it again.
Extreme lag, rubber banding, emptying a clip into someone and they look at you and walk off or then shoot in a random direction and you die.
My ping to that server was always under 100m/s - yet it was and still is most times, unplayable - unless to learn to shoot where someone might be in 10 minutes from now... w00t what fun :rolleyes:

You really want that for ED ?
 
Last edited:
This is the part that I am also wary about. Is there any guarantee that by eventually switching to a server based architecture all problems will be gone?

All solutions have there own draw backs.

How do you fancy EVE style time dilation from your cockpit, 1 frame a minute dog fighting - sounds fun, right?

Or all those people with horrible pings that the matchmaker currently keeps away from you - now being forced in to your game.
Picture the scene, you see an enemy ship and quickly drop in behind them - you unload everything you've got in to them and......
*blink* they are behind you and you insta pop, due to them actually being behind you the whole time doing the same back, you just had not had a server update until now - when it is too late.

Ships, rubber banding all over the place.

and...

I've saved the best till last;
In game server chat, with added "gold sellers".

$24.99 for 100 tons of palladium at www.goingtospamthisforever.com
 
Most players do not "massage" game mechanics, so if there has been a reduction in player cap per instance island - very few would even notice it (related to the following reasons).

No, but currently we are talking about simply getting members of a 4 man wing into the same space. It was a little flaky before, and it's way worse now.
And in 1.2, those that *did* want to make things a bit more interesting for themselves could use wing anchors and seed space for rather epic battles. It worked way way better for those that wanted to. And there *are* plenty that do too.
This is not the only thing we do in the game by the way. Simply an awesome aspect that is now harder than ever to implement.

Chasing someone is done through their wake, which overrides the random matchmaking / instance system and places you in to their instance island - if they are gone by the time you get in to their wake, you were either too slow and they have jumped out of the system or they logged out (and possibly back in to spawn another instance or used Groups / Solo to get away from you).

I believe Zylark was talking about simply dropping from normal space back into SC. Not following a high wake and no wake scanner needed. Players sometimes simply disappear...

Power Play has nothing to do with PvP in a direct combat way - it is done through the Powers Prep/Expand and Fortify system. It was not designed to promote PvP. This is a PvE game with the ability to PvP, not a PvP game - big difference.

I don't see how this is? PVP is also a perfectly valid element to the game and as such is a part of Powerplay, indirectly or not.
Want to come and expand into Archon space? We will come as singles or as wings and then try and stop you.... makes sense to me.

As for the P2P system, it is fine for the purpose it was chosen - this is not EVE Online and it is not a pew pew gank fest COD. There is a reason fast paced games do not have "massive" instances or tons of players in one area (EVEs time dilatation does not work for fast paced action games - hence would not work here). Also a Client/Server set up requires a lot of money to maintain - don't see you opening your wallet, so you're stuck with cheap and cheerful.

I don't think the OP was asking for an EVE Online by any means and certainly not a 'pew pew' gank fest? Whatever that may be.... If you had ever partaken in a large scale 'discrepancy' in space and been a part of a large scale battle, you would realise just how much planning, skill and tactics goes into setting it all up.
If you think it's just 'pew pew' COD style fighting, then you're sadly misguided on your views.

I appreciate everyone wants something from this game and going back to 1.2 i believe it was almost achieving this and had an exciting foundation, but for now instancing *is* an issue, even on a small scale, let alone for those who previously enjoyed pushing the envelope.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
None whatsoever!
As we all know!

Yeah...

What about that idea I ve heard of "supernodes" or specific servers dedicated to manage dynamically (i.e. upon detection) high traffic areas of Open play activity? This would be a sort of compromise between the current p2p (which I dont think can be just "replaced" in a whim) and a full on server architecture.

I have no idea whatsoever about netcode, so bear with me, but the basic principle of servers dedicated to manage only a fraction (high traffic) of the Open community would seem like a decent compromise both technically and commercially, no?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom