I played l4d2

i played l4d2 again due to the recent new patch/map. I have not played l4d2 for many years and can i just say its so nice to have sub 50 ping in any game i join. if only v2 has dedicated servers.

le rip


Dedicated servers do not prevent high ping. Your ping relies not only on internet connection speeds but the physical distance between the source and destination systems.

Dedicated servers for V2 will not help with latency issues. There’s roughly 3k players in V2 at any given time spread out all around the world.

Dedicated servers will only make things worse for a lot of people living in areas where there is not a high number of V2 players.

Besides, no one can guarantee that the person running the server has the bandwidth and internet speeds required for a smooth game.

Also, dedicated servers cost money. Who do you think pays for that?

If you haven’t figured it out, it’s the players that have to pay for the service.

  1. The ping you see in L4D2 is not the same number as the one you see in V2, which is based on more than just the connection time and usually higher, at least 30-40 with people in the same CITY.

  2. L4D2 can run on a toaster nowadays while V2’s AI director makes a lot of host CPUs sweat.

  3. Due to the above, a dedicated server for V2 would be pretty expensive to run considering it only hosts 4 players.

  4. Official dedicated servers can still be down (happened in L4D2)

  5. There is no guarantee that you’ll be finding players on a dedicated server near you, just like there is no guarantee that you’ll be finding p2p players near you

  6. L4D2 currently has ten times the active players due to a recent update (and being free to keep for a while), so you are obviously going to have an easier time finding runs near you by sheer probability

Now obviously they could still give players the CHOICE to run their own dedicated servers, but that’s a separate headless (no graphics) version of the game to be maintained and that’s a hassle Fatshark did not want.


Everyone wants dedicated servers, but nobody knows what it actually affects or how expensive it is for the advantages it will actually bring. Then everyone gets mad that fatshark didn’t implement dedicated servers. Feelsbadman


As was said, the in game Latency number you see takes a whole bunch of things into account like the CPU of the host. That’s why my wife and I can be right next to each other and have 25-35 ping.

I’d rather have normal P2P, it’s easier, the only downside is if a host rage quits. I just remember my community running servers for BF3 and it sucked. Had to pay for every slot on the server. Was not cheap, around 1,000$ USD a month for our servers.


If Versus is really still in the works, does everyone here think it would really be viable / not devolve in to mass ragequits and host migration without moving away from P2P? Other reasons for not having servers are fine, but I’m not sure how 8 players could be handled with the current system.

Most of the time you can find players near you on pc because of the lobby browser, although you can also just set it in your options in-game, console may be a different story though.

In versus dedicated servers wouldn’t fix the issue of host ragequitting. If you look at deadbydaylight for example, where you have 1 killer and 4 surivors, previously you had the killer hosting and the 4 survivors being client, dedicated servers didn’t fix the issue of killers quitting, the game cannot progress without a killer. So if versus works in the same way, where you have killers and survivors then dedicated servers cannot really fix this.

OFcourse if there are 4 killers and one of those is hosting for 7 players, then yes dedicated servers could prevent the game from closing when that particular host leaves. Then its still 3vs4 which is still pretty toxic and will most likely result in the other 3 ‘killers’ leaving anyway. I think a penalty system could achieve better results and doesn’t cost alot.

Edit: also looking at dead by daylight and the entire dedicated servers thing, it didnt fix most of the issues the playerbase had, even though alot of the community wanted them for “x” reasons. it might of improved it, but was it worth the cost? Also dead by daylight has a huge cosmetic and battlepass system + dlc , which probably makes way more money then vermintide.( also more players)

1 Like

I am more referring to how host migration currently works with the P2P integration, and the increased processing power relying on that host’s PC with more players like that. I can say for certain that L4D would not have the amount of players it still has if it was peer to peer.

I’m not saying Versus with P2P is impossible, just that it would be sabotaging the mode and would kill it incredibly quickly. For PvE, I think P2P works fine (except for the still very flawed migration). I know servers cost money, but not using them seems at odds with trying to release a PvP game.

Ah ok, well i cannot answer that. I’m sure they will test it.

1 Like