EA Forums - Banner

Why is versus servers Trash.

Prev1
1 out of 10 games laggy, EA needs to fix this garbage.

Replies

  • Socair
    2765 posts Game Changer
    Versus isn’t played over servers. It’s peer to peer, which means the distance and connection quality between you and the opponent you find determines the ping.
  • Socair wrote: »
    Versus isn’t played over servers. It’s peer to peer, which means the distance and connection quality between you and the opponent you find determines the ping.

    Why would they do that? That just seems like a settling up people for failure 😕
  • IceLion68
    1563 posts Member
    Socair wrote: »
    Versus isn’t played over servers. It’s peer to peer, which means the distance and connection quality between you and the opponent you find determines the ping.

    Why would they do that? That just seems like a settling up people for failure 😕

    Why on earth would you think EA would host *1 v 1* games on their servers? This is not practical. Is there even one game that does this?
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • IceLion68 wrote: »
    Socair wrote: »
    Versus isn’t played over servers. It’s peer to peer, which means the distance and connection quality between you and the opponent you find determines the ping.

    Why would they do that? That just seems like a settling up people for failure 😕

    Why on earth would you think EA would host *1 v 1* games on their servers? This is not practical. Is there even one game that does this?

    I may be wrong as I don't play the mode, but my understanding is that HUT games were moved from peer-to-peer to server based a couple of years ago.
  • IceLion68
    1563 posts Member
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    Socair wrote: »
    Versus isn’t played over servers. It’s peer to peer, which means the distance and connection quality between you and the opponent you find determines the ping.

    Why would they do that? That just seems like a settling up people for failure 😕

    Why on earth would you think EA would host *1 v 1* games on their servers? This is not practical. Is there even one game that does this?

    I may be wrong as I don't play the mode, but my understanding is that HUT games were moved from peer-to-peer to server based a couple of years ago.
    Actually I believe you are correct, however, given how much extra money people pay to play this mode and given the cash cow that it is, it's pretty easy to see why EA would do this.


    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • Socair
    2765 posts Game Changer
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    Socair wrote: »
    Versus isn’t played over servers. It’s peer to peer, which means the distance and connection quality between you and the opponent you find determines the ping.

    Why would they do that? That just seems like a settling up people for failure 😕

    Why on earth would you think EA would host *1 v 1* games on their servers? This is not practical. Is there even one game that does this?

    I may be wrong as I don't play the mode, but my understanding is that HUT games were moved from peer-to-peer to server based a couple of years ago.
    Actually I believe you are correct, however, given how much extra money people pay to play this mode and given the cash cow that it is, it's pretty easy to see why EA would do this.

    Well it was moved to servers because P2P connections are easily manipulated unfortunately. Still, there are people who prefer the P2P connections because they can get a better ping against players in their region if a server isn’t present.
  • IceLion68
    1563 posts Member
    Socair wrote: »
    Well it was moved to servers because P2P connections are easily manipulated unfortunately. Still, there are people who prefer the P2P connections because they can get a better ping against players in their region if a server isn’t present.

    Understood, but this is true of ALL P2P modes (in all games) including Versus... so it remains to be explained why HUT is server-based and Versus is not.
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • Socair
    2765 posts Game Changer
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    Socair wrote: »
    Well it was moved to servers because P2P connections are easily manipulated unfortunately. Still, there are people who prefer the P2P connections because they can get a better ping against players in their region if a server isn’t present.

    Understood, but this is true of ALL P2P modes (in all games) including Versus... so it remains to be explained why HUT is server-based and Versus is not.
    Well HUT is more popular for one, so the greater player base is going to get priority. Also the servers were in place for EASHL already so it’s not like HUT revenue mattered. As I said, there’s a fair amount of players who don’t like server gameplay, so maybe keeping versus P2P is intentional for that reason.
  • IceLion68
    1563 posts Member
    Socair wrote: »
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    Socair wrote: »
    Well it was moved to servers because P2P connections are easily manipulated unfortunately. Still, there are people who prefer the P2P connections because they can get a better ping against players in their region if a server isn’t present.

    Understood, but this is true of ALL P2P modes (in all games) including Versus... so it remains to be explained why HUT is server-based and Versus is not.
    Well HUT is more popular for one, so the greater player base is going to get priority. Also the servers were in place for EASHL already so it’s not like HUT revenue mattered. As I said, there’s a fair amount of players who don’t like server gameplay, so maybe keeping versus P2P is intentional for that reason.

    If a fair number of players don't like server game play, this would hold true in HUT as well as Versus. I realize that server vs P2P is a no-win situation. You can't please everyone.

    The servers "being there already" doesn't mean they can just throw HUT on there as well with no change in data center capacity without impacting performance.

    It's OK to say you don't know why HUT is server based and Versus is not. That is an acceptable answer.
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • Follisimo
    1177 posts Member
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    Socair wrote: »
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    Socair wrote: »
    Well it was moved to servers because P2P connections are easily manipulated unfortunately. Still, there are people who prefer the P2P connections because they can get a better ping against players in their region if a server isn’t present.

    Understood, but this is true of ALL P2P modes (in all games) including Versus... so it remains to be explained why HUT is server-based and Versus is not.
    Well HUT is more popular for one, so the greater player base is going to get priority. Also the servers were in place for EASHL already so it’s not like HUT revenue mattered. As I said, there’s a fair amount of players who don’t like server gameplay, so maybe keeping versus P2P is intentional for that reason.

    If a fair number of players don't like server game play, this would hold true in HUT as well as Versus. I realize that server vs P2P is a no-win situation. You can't please everyone.

    The servers "being there already" doesn't mean they can just throw HUT on there as well with no change in data center capacity without impacting performance.

    It's OK to say you don't know why HUT is server based and Versus is not. That is an acceptable answer.

    It's simple in HUT when it was P2P people could desync games causing people to lose. They could lag switch also. Versus isn't where money is spent so it's simply there to be there because it existed for so long. Now HUT is a money generator where fairness is more important because $$$$ being spent.

    That is the answer that won't get said straight up.

  • Greyinsi
    129 posts Member
    Versus doesn’t generate more money yes, but what about that 70€ we have already paid? Versus is almost unplayable due to constant connection manipulation. Every other player does it, it’s almost like EA encourages to do it.
  • Sega82mega
    3776 posts Member
    What do you mean by manipulation? I only play onlineVS and of course my ping is up and down from game to game.

    But other then that - it's the same old story. People that like to look for a cross crease to score.

    But thats not a P2P problem.
  • Greyinsi
    129 posts Member
    Sega82mega wrote: »
    What do you mean by manipulation? I only play onlineVS and of course my ping is up and down from game to game.

    You can easily limit your upload / download speed depending if you are host or not. The other player will have severe lag, and/or his AI is unable to act. Thats just one thing you can do, there are dozen other shady methods you can influence the outcome of game. If OVP would be played on server, this wouldn't be such an issue, and you could actually punish players trying to manipulate connection.

    Other thing the server would fix is if P2P host has poor router, usually the cheapest you get from ISP. I have played as low as 2ms ping but the game was in slow motion. All the routers just aren't up for hosting fast online games.
  • Sega82mega
    3776 posts Member
    Greyinsi wrote: »
    Sega82mega wrote: »
    What do you mean by manipulation? I only play onlineVS and of course my ping is up and down from game to game.

    You can easily limit your upload / download speed depending if you are host or not. The other player will have severe lag, and/or his AI is unable to act. Thats just one thing you can do, there are dozen other shady methods you can influence the outcome of game. If OVP would be played on server, this wouldn't be such an issue, and you could actually punish players trying to manipulate connection.

    Other thing the server would fix is if P2P host has poor router, usually the cheapest you get from ISP. I have played as low as 2ms ping but the game was in slow motion. All the routers just aren't up for hosting fast online games.

    Yeah I rather think it's that - people dont got the best set up at home.

    But I dont know if there's some sort of compensation between a good connection vs a weak.

    Dosent feel like you get any advantage by having a 'elite-connection' - probebly more to the opposite - If anything.
  • IceLion68 wrote: »
    The servers "being there already" doesn't mean they can just throw HUT on there as well with no change in data center capacity without impacting performance.

    You can absolutely leverage dynamic infrastructure in AWS/AZURE so that new VM's are fired up with the specific goal of not impacting performance of the web app you're hosting.


  • IceLion68
    1563 posts Member
    edited June 1
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    The servers "being there already" doesn't mean they can just throw HUT on there as well with no change in data center capacity without impacting performance.

    You can absolutely leverage dynamic infrastructure in AWS/AZURE so that new VM's are fired up with the specific goal of not impacting performance of the web app you're hosting.


    A process which changes their data center capacity, with an accompanying cost.
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • Sega82mega
    3776 posts Member
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    The servers "being there already" doesn't mean they can just throw HUT on there as well with no change in data center capacity without impacting performance.

    You can absolutely leverage dynamic infrastructure in AWS/AZURE so that new VM's are fired up with the specific goal of not impacting performance of the web app you're hosting.


    AWS/AZURE and new VM's.

    I didn't understand a thing of that.

    But I usally agree with kid.

    Sooo.. We'll said - fix it EA! 😡
  • KidShowtime1867
    1721 posts Member
    edited June 1
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    The servers "being there already" doesn't mean they can just throw HUT on there as well with no change in data center capacity without impacting performance.

    You can absolutely leverage dynamic infrastructure in AWS/AZURE so that new VM's are fired up with the specific goal of not impacting performance of the web app you're hosting.


    A process which changes their data center capacity, with an accompanying cost.

    But does not impact performance - if executed properly.

    And the capacity may already be there infrastructure-wise. There also may be an SLA in play that allows increased capacity/performance on AWS/Azure without a bump in cost.

    In any case, whatever it is they're doing - they need to cover more regions with less latency in the dedicated server department.
  • IceLion68
    1563 posts Member
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    The servers "being there already" doesn't mean they can just throw HUT on there as well with no change in data center capacity without impacting performance.

    You can absolutely leverage dynamic infrastructure in AWS/AZURE so that new VM's are fired up with the specific goal of not impacting performance of the web app you're hosting.


    A process which changes their data center capacity, with an accompanying cost.

    But does not impact performance - if executed properly.

    And the capacity may already be there infrastructure-wise. There also may be an SLA in play that allows increased capacity/performance on AWS/Azure without a bump in cost.

    In any case, whatever it is they're doing - they need to cover more regions with less latency in the dedicated server department.
    You seem to be argumentative for it's own sake here.

    The only point I was making is that server infrastructure to accommodate hosting an entire game mode for potentially thousands of users doesn't just materialize out of thin air with zero effort and zero cost... or are you literally saying that is false?
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • IceLion68
    1563 posts Member
    Sega82mega wrote: »
    IceLion68 wrote: »
    The servers "being there already" doesn't mean they can just throw HUT on there as well with no change in data center capacity without impacting performance.

    You can absolutely leverage dynamic infrastructure in AWS/AZURE so that new VM's are fired up with the specific goal of not impacting performance of the web app you're hosting.


    AWS/AZURE and new VM's.

    I didn't understand a thing of that.

    But I usally agree with kid.

    yes, we know
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!