as servers appear to not be coming , and host migration seems to be too hard. how about at least not letting people who ragequit host?
a “sorry youve behaved like a tool and now people dont trust you” debuff for few hour or forever.
and to the obvious guy whose going to say always host then its not problem , please try to understand that it doesnt actually fix the core problem.
So there are a couple great things about Vermintide hosting (and I may be wrong, so anyone should feel comfortable correcting me), buy my personal favorite is that there is pretty good fault tolerance. In this sense, if someone has a momentary lapse in internet connect or drops 30% of packets for a second, the game doesn’t just instantly disconnect. The reason I mention this is that the vast majority of people aren’t having internet problems when they DC a hosted game.
Unfortunately, VT2 can crash (perfectly stable games are utopian, so this is totally okay), internet can drop completely, or someone could run into the room with a molotov and threaten to burn a house down. I’m guessing that 20% or more of people that leave games like that when they didn’t intend to.
The long and short of my statement is that we would be punishing a lot of people who don’t deserve it if we do enable a punishment system like that. However, this does bring up a prior topic. Point 5 is very relevant:
A great way around this is to not punish players for leaving but, instead, we help support the other players and try to migrate the host without restarting the level. It’d be difficult to implement to say the least, but it would be cool if it worked!
As always, it’s impossible for the game to know whether dropping out mid-round is a ragequit or if there’s a legitimate reason; whether the players have discussed about it beforehand (in game chat, through game’s voice chat or through external applications like Discord), or possibly even whether it was a bug or a sudden disconnection.
As such, heavy penalties really shouldn’t apply here, even if it is annoying for the others. A debuff for the host who quit is possible, but might end up still penalizing unintended disconnects, or ones for genuinely good reasons. A blacklist has been a long-asked feature (or at least using Steam’s existing block feature), and could help against repeat encounters at least. A reputation system could be the most effective one, but that kind of stuff is still easily left open for abuse.
Personally, I think rather than penalizing the host who left, a better solution could be compensation for the others who suffered, likely in the form of equal EXP to a failed run, as that’s what it essentially was, and certainly what causes ragequits (well, more accurately the impatient host predicting a failure or getting bored with someone else’s clutch).
Of course, a checkpoint system and good host migration would help with these, and dedicated servers might mitigate at least some issues depending on the implementation, but as you pointed out, we haven’t heard anything in a long time.
Yes, there is and it’s an error message saying, “HOST HAS LEFT THE GAME.”
Also, we should not get dedicated servers. Why? Because not everyone lives near Sweden and latency issues will be far worse than it is now. They would only have one server and that server will be located in Sweden, obviously.
i dont hink it is obvious , there are computers in other countries and its not like FS would have to supply them , 1/4 of a century ago i used to play q2 on dedicated servers there were servers all over the world and all of them were provided by community. can we really not match what was standard last century?
well first , it really doesnt matter if its deliberate or out of your hands , the other 3 do already get punished unfailry , and id rather punish one person whose culpable than 3 wo are innocent.
and its not like im suggesting we track these people down and put them up against a wall.
simply if someone proves to be an unreliably host for what ever reason they are prevented from being a host for a time. they can still play they can still host private games just dont pick them as the qp host for x time.
Maintaining servers cost lots of money.
Fatshark is an indie gaming developing company.
ESO is a huge MMO and only has 2 servers because of how much money it costs to maintain.
One of their servers is in Texas and I still get ping anywhere between 100-400 depending on how many people are in that particular zone I’m in.
So, no, I do not want dedicated servers for Vermintide 2 as it will punish all players not within a reasonable distance to the only place they will be able to set up their server, in Sweden.
ESO is elder scrolls online right ? an MMO
V2 has 4 clients, eso servers have hundreds/thousands?
v2 server sessions run for 20 mins? eso servers run week long sessions?
yes eso servers may be expensive (i have no clue, i suspect the nuber of servers is limited by player population not cost.) but as V2 servers are currently our pc’s that are doing both host and client duties ill go on a limb and guess there not that demanding.
and as i siad there would not be any need for FS to host these servers, sure they could stick up a few boxes but i gurentee the community would step up and do it.
so no again it wont. you would play on local servers with same or better ping , just with less chance of the server going down mid session.
That really depends on how the dedicated servers are implemented, and what’s the expected load. The load will certainly be far less than anything the size of Elder Scrolls Online (which I assume you mentioned).
Even if the servers were to be hosted only by FS, they would likely need at least US and EU for physical locations (and even for EU, I think Sweden would hardly be the best place), and likely Russia, South America and SE Asia as well. Well, if they aim for the service to be useful worldwide, that is, and I suspect they would, as valuing different customers differently (besides regional pricing and law requirements) is not a good move.
Far more likely, I think, is that they would also allow private hosting with either separate or built-in server program. Which would honestly solve the location problems quite easily.
This is all speculation though, and off-topic to boot.
You’re not understanding. If Fatshark gets dedicated servers for this game then the server will be located at their office.
Ping would be based on the location of the server. Unless Fatshark decides on microtransactions, they will not have enough incoming revenue to maintain multiple servers.
Zenimax and Bethesda have stated on multiple occasions that they are honestly shocked that their game has survived as long as it has because of how expensive it is to maintain their servers. Then again, they get constant income pouring in from their Crown Store to help pay for server maintenance.
The sad part is that even as big as the ESO game is, people still get booted from the game if there are too many people in a particular zone. Each zone can only hold 1,000 people and Cyrodiil a total of 1,500 people (500 from each faction). If they can’t maintain huge numbers of players on 2 separate servers, how do you expect Fatshark to do it?
well i get that concern , but for a start if there was only one dedicated server odds are they wouldnt even host it themselves it would almost certainly be in a data center run by an outside company thats parked ontop of a very big trunkline.
but there is no reason to think there would only be one server center as you pointed out that would be a terrible solution that would be worse for a large amount of people.
i would exepct a setup very similar to how left for dead2 handled it .
There would be dedicated servers both official and community supplied , when you que for a game the central server deals with the lobby set up and “books” you a server first trying to find an official dedicated> unofficial dedicated and if none of quality are found then it would still set up a p2p connetion and local host
an ESO sever and a V2 server though are entirely different things ,you do understand that right now our pc’s are the v2 servers, thats how low the load of a v2 server is.
And i wouldnt go believing every sob story bethesda and zenimax wheel out about how high thier costs are.
I’m sorry I’m not going to argue with you anymore.
You’re expecting too much from a small company.
That’s the equivalent of trying to get your car’s oil changed at the farmer’s market.
I wouldn’t mind a quit % stat. I remember on BF3 and other games, you could see how much a person quits their games. If a person is constantly rage quitting, it will effect their stat and other could see it.
They’re not really a small company. Close to 100 employees with millions in revenue and they are buying smaller companies now.
The solution is dedicated server software that fat shark provides for anyone to use. Then people can set up their own dedicated servers. Heck I have an extra computer that I’d leave on 24/7 for it, dedicated servers really don’t need that impressive of hardware since they don’t have to actually render anything. Running one on AWS or linode would probably pretty reasonable.
Lots of other games take this approach and there is no shortage of servers for them.
you need 1 adjustable wrech and a bucket to swap your oil out , odds any farmer will have those tools to hand.
smaller companies than FS were doing this 25 years ago. if im asking too much thats just plain sad.
The fact we’re living in an entitled generation is just plain sad.
Fyi, it’s a major health violation to change your oil at a farmer’s market. If you had any intelligence, you would know that.
Speak for yourself.
Local hosting on company-owned servers isn’t the norm anymore. Now they all use Amazon or Microsoft cloud servers and those have server farms all over the world. It’s likely that if FS decided to go down the dedicated server route that they would have instances spread all over the place.
I’d guess that they’ve so far decided not to go down this route becuse they’ve done the maths and looked at their other plans and found that dedicated servers deliver less value for money than other things.
To talk about the OP message: If overwatch’s penalties for quitters has taught me anything, it’s that if you’re at the point where you’re quitting multiple games in a row, you’re at the point where the game can’t actually punish you because you don’t care anymore. I’d prefer to see rewards for staying in a party for consecutive games.