Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

Yeah now you can see that ugly hell even better.

We will be able to see that beautiful spread like never before!!!!

Spready to the Gods

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah now you can see that ugly hell even better.

Are you talking shit about our lord and saviour, before you see his full glory in 4K?

 

admiral-lord-terrence-hood-halo-3-9.89.j

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

Are you talking shit about our lord and saviour, before you see his full glory in 4K?

 

admiral-lord-terrence-hood-halo-3-9.89.j

I'mma be completely honest and thought you were talking about Halo 5.

Share this post


Link to post

Game pass does not work for Win 10 PC games.  Guess I won't be giving Sea of Thieves a try.  Oh well Farcry 5 looks more fun anyway.  

idk what you talking. Me and my brother are playing it with Game Pass. Plus, my gf's account is in my Xbox One, so she can also play in my Xbox and join us. We got a 3 crew-member going on.

Share this post


Link to post

It’s sorta mystifying that MS can’t release an online game w/o a ton of server issues. Operater of one of the works largest server businesses, cant get their own products to work reliably on their own services.

 

Even the Xbox live login service has been incredibly unreliable lately.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

It’s sorta mystifying that MS can’t release an online game w/o a ton of server issues. Operater of one of the works largest server businesses, cant get their own products to work reliably on their own services.

 

Even the Xbox live login service has been incredibly unreliable lately.

Somebody over there needs a wake up call. The reason XBL was so dominant was in LARGE part due to the fact that it was miles and miles ahead quality wise compared to PSN. Their business with the Xbox brand is built upon superior online infrastructure 

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

It’s sorta mystifying that MS can’t release an online game w/o a ton of server issues. Operater of one of the works largest server businesses, cant get their own products to work reliably on their own services.

 

Even the Xbox live login service has been incredibly unreliable lately.

Titanfall 1 was pretty smooth all the way back in 2014 - absurd that pretty much everything since then has had a messy day 1/2.

Share this post


Link to post

Even the Xbox live login service has been incredibly unreliable lately.

 

For like the last three years yes. XBL is complete thrash compared to what it used to be during the 360 days.

Share this post


Link to post

For like the last three years yes. XBL is complete thrash compared to what it used to be during the 360 days.

 

 

Dedis are overrated.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

idk what you talking. Me and my brother are playing it with Game Pass. Plus, my gf's account is in my Xbox One, so she can also play in my Xbox and join us. We got a 3 crew-member going on.

I posted this before it released. I had read the Game Pass FAQ and it stated it was not supported on Windows 10 so I thought that meant "Play Anywhere" was underuled. If you had read a couple more post you would see the confusion was cleared up.
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Dedis are overrated.

Nooooooo no.

 

Everyone at Treyarch would say that. And I would ask if they've ever actually played bo3 online, it's nothing but constant host changes and lag

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

Yea, Dedis are not the problem. Incompetent/rushed money greedy managers and publishers are the probelm. I bet the techies down below who actually do the work warn it's not ready and it falls upon deaf ears. No doubt in my mind.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Nooooooo no.

 

Everyone at Treyarch would say that. And I would ask if they've ever actually played bo3 online, it's nothing but constant host changes and lag

 

Yea, Dedis are not the problem. Incompetent/rushed money greedy managers and publishers are the probelm. I bet the techies down below who actually do the work warn it's not ready and it falls upon deaf ears. No doubt in my mind.

Nobody said dedis are the problem.  I am not saying they are bad.  Just that they are not some "cure all" like they are sold as. They are overrated.  They are a modest upgrade at best for people that live close to a datacenter.  Potential downgrades for people that don't.  They are better on average, but for some people they are worse. You still get differential connections, lag etc.  some people seem to think that inherent problems with the internet are solved by dedicated servers but they just arent.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

P2P aways has been and always will be utter shit for online gaming. The only reason that garbage persists is that it's cheaper and enough consumers don't know any better and/or don't care. Same reason you have ridiculous nonsense like MWR running 10 tick servers (later upgraded to a blistering 20 tick, I do believe).

 

I dream of a future in which AAA online infrastructure is consistently on par with 90s PC games with well below modern "indie" budgets and team sizes.

Share this post


Link to post

P2P aways has been and always will be utter shit for online gaming. The only reason that garbage persists is that it's cheaper and enough consumers don't know any better and/or don't care. Same reason you have ridiculous nonsense like MWR running 10 tick servers (later upgraded to a blistering 20 tick, I do believe).

 

I dream of a future in which AAA online infrastructure is consistently on par with 90s PC games with well below modern "indie" budgets and team sizes.

This isn’t true. First off P2P will always be better for fighting games.

 

Beyond that, the adequacy of dedicated servers will always be contingent on the players’ latency to the data center. On azure based games there are examples from South Africa, South America and Austrailia where players in close proximity to each other have unforgivably poor connections to the server.

 

One could argue that allowing people to run their own dedicated servers would solve that problem- and it would so long as those with the means to do so run their servers in an agreeable manner - which will never be the case for everyone’s liking.

 

The absolute best solution is to have all 4- official dedi’s, P2P fallback, custom dedi’s, and P2P customs.

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

This isn’t true. First off P2P will always be better for fighting games.

 

Beyond that, the adequacy of dedicated servers will always be contingent on the players’ latency to the data center. On azure based games there are examples from South Africa, South America and Austrailia where players in close proximity to each other have unforgivably poor connections to the server.

 

One could argue that allowing people to run their own dedicated servers would solve that problem- and it would so long as those with the means to do so run their servers in an agreeable manner - which will never be the case for everyone’s liking.

 

The absolute best solution is to have all 4- official dedi’s, P2P fallback, custom dedi’s, and P2P customs.

 

In what possible way is P2P better for fighting games? Host advantage in a game literally dealing in 8 frame timings is a major problem. Beyond that, fighting games by their very nature are poorly suited to online play, so it's a silly example to begin with.

 

The adequacy of P2P will always be contingent on the player's latency to the host. Why are we stating the obvious here? Outlier use cases in regions that constitute a small percentage of the player base and, more importantly, who have POOR service as a result, has nothing to do with the merits of P2P versus dedicated severs. That issue is not dedicated servers versus P2P.

 

This my problem with these pedantic arguments in favor of P2P. It ultimately comes down to "P2P with players with a few miles of each other and a host with a solid connection is better than POOR dedicated severs and connecting to dedicated servers on different continents." Well, no shit. Comparing the best case scenario of one solution to the worst case of another makes no sense. It's disingenuous.

  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

In what possible way is P2P better for fighting games? Host advantage in a game literally dealing in 8 frame timings is a major problem. Beyond that, fighting games by their very nature are poorly suited to online play, so it's a silly example to begin with.

 

The adequacy of P2P will always be contingent on the player's latency to the host. Why are we stating the obvious here? Outlier use cases in regions that constitute a small percentage of the player base and, more importantly, who have POOR service as a result, has nothing to do with the merits of P2P versus dedicated severs. That issue is not dedicated servers versus P2P.

 

This my problem with these pedantic arguments in favor of P2P. It ultimately comes down to "P2P with players with a few miles of each other and a host with a solid connection is better than POOR dedicated severs and connecting to dedicated servers on different continents." Well, no shit. Comparing the best case scenario of one solution to the worst case of another makes no sense. It's disingenuous.

You're misunderstanding alot here. I suggest you read up.

 

http://mauve.mizuumi.net/2012/07/05/understanding-fighting-game-networking/

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/5izkqa/comment/dbcdml4

 

"I do P2P research and couldn't help but notice that many people here confuse P2P games with server-client games hosted by one of the players. As soon as you say "one player is made the host" or "the game has to be migrated because the host disconnected" you're not talking about P2P. In a P2P game all participants are equivalent. So when a player drops out of the game the others don't even care because they also redundantly get the data from some other players (although they could also wait for the player to get back online depending on the game genre). It is also not true that P2P doesn't work well with large player counts. In fact the opposite is true. For example World of Warcraft is a server-client game. They have some really beefy server machines. But they would still not be able to host another opening of the gates of ahn'qiraj in 2016. In P2P this would be no problem because it scales horizontally (more machines instead of one faster machine make the network perform better). A lot of the other issues like opening ports are not P2P exclusive and there are ways to deal with them. All in all most games famously suffer from terrible net code and game developers usually aren't very knowledgeable regarding P2P."

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

In what possible way is P2P better for fighting games? Host advantage in a game literally dealing in 8 frame timings is a major problem. Beyond that, fighting games by their very nature are poorly suited to online play, so it's a silly example to begin with.

 

The adequacy of P2P will always be contingent on the player's latency to the host. Why are we stating the obvious here? Outlier use cases in regions that constitute a small percentage of the player base and, more importantly, who have POOR service as a result, has nothing to do with the merits of P2P versus dedicated severs. That issue is not dedicated servers versus P2P.

 

This my problem with these pedantic arguments in favor of P2P. It ultimately comes down to "P2P with players with a few miles of each other and a host with a solid connection is better than POOR dedicated severs and connecting to dedicated servers on different continents." Well, no shit. Comparing the best case scenario of one solution to the worst case of another makes no sense. It's disingenuous.

Because you can synchronize between two players directly connected to each other while accounting for lag and host advantage more efficiently and fairly, than you can account for two different quality connections to a server

 

http://mauve.mizuumi.net/2012/07/05/understanding-fighting-game-networking/

 

The idea that using fighting games as an example is silly is... interesting. They are games. People want to play games online, and we are discussing methods of facilitating this. The idea that a particular genre should be off the table because the industry standard for it doesn’t fit your argument is... silly

 

I feel like you are the one with the pedantic, disengenous argument. Your take dedicated servers is also applies only in best case scenarios. There is enough possibility (ie, it’s extremely likely) that such a scenario wouldn’t exist for a given customer, that having P2P fallback options should be a no brainer.

 

Also, why limit the reach of your game by limiting to a networking model that can only adequately service players with low latency connection to data centers? Perhaps people who live with less advanced infrastructure make up a such a low percentage of the population because they can’t play the game...

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Because you can synchronize between two players directly connected to each other while accounting for lag and host advantage more efficiently and fairly, than you can account for two different quality connections to a server

 

http://mauve.mizuumi.net/2012/07/05/understanding-fighting-game-networking/

 

I feel like you are the one with the pedantic, disengenous argument. Your take dedicated servers is also applies only in best case scenarios. There is enough possibility (ie, it’s extremely likely) that such a scenario wouldn’t exist for a given customer, that having P2P fallback options should be a no brainer

 

Fair enough.

 

At no point did I ever argue against P2P as a fallback option, nor did I ever suggest that dedicated servers never have any problems. My point is that the performance issue in question to is a result of poor service and coverage, which makes P2P's utility in that context more of a Band-Aid than a solution. Mail is a superior communication format to email when no one has electricity.

Share this post


Link to post

Fair enough.

 

At no point did I ever argue against P2P as a fallback option, nor did I ever suggest that dedicated servers never have any problems. My point is that the performance issue in question to is a result of poor service and coverage, which makes P2P's utility in that context more of a Band-Aid than a solution. Mail is a superior communication format to email when no one has electricity.

P2P is a solution - in markets where the datacenter infrastructure is inadequate. You argued that people only want P2P because they don’t know any better. They actually want it because they live in a scenario where it would deliver a better experience, than dedi’s can provide.

 

Mail is also superior for sending physical packages. Ideally, a person can can access parcel service and email.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know why but I really hate this word.

Which one of the 3? Or did you just mean 'world'?
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know why but I really hate this word.

 

Which one of the 3? Or did you just mean 'world'?

 

LOL im going to assume "Dedis"

Everybody has one of those.  I hate the word "tummy".  ughh it makes me shudder its disgusting.

and any time someone pronounced the "H" in where, white or why. As soon as someone does that i know 100% for a fact that they are a pretentious prick.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

LOL im going to assume "Dedis"

Everybody has one of those.  I hate the word "tummy".  ughh it makes me shudder its disgusting.

and any time someone pronounced the "H" in where, white or why. As soon as someone does that i know 100% for a fact that they are a pretentious prick.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.