I have been kicked out of the last 4 games due to "lag". Suffice to say my connection is excellent.
I wonder how Relic thinks they can get a worthwhile ladder going, even if it was "secure" to drophack and the other shenanigans, the whole P2P ordeal already invalidates it.
P2P fucking sucks.
P2P is already starting to piss me off.
25 Jun 2013, 18:42 PM
#1
Posts: 644
5 OP OH tanks in front of your base
blow one up, slap it around
7 OP OH tanks in front of your base
blow one up, slap it around
7 OP OH tanks in front of your base
25 Jun 2013, 18:59 PM
#2
Posts: 133
i dont know much about networks, but im inclined to aggree, why not give us something like battle.net ?
BUY SILVER, CRASH BANKSTERS.
25 Jun 2013, 19:13 PM
#3
Posts: 1620 | Subs: 2
i dont know much about networks, but im inclined to aggree, why not give us something like battle.net ?
Battle.net is super expensive to run.
Signature by Ginnungagap
25 Jun 2013, 19:16 PM
#4
15 
Posts: 1708 | Subs: 2
battle.net is a weird p2p hybrid system as well.
25 Jun 2013, 20:32 PM
#5
Posts: 644
battle.net is a weird p2p hybrid system as well.
well, it works.
5 OP OH tanks in front of your base
blow one up, slap it around
7 OP OH tanks in front of your base
blow one up, slap it around
7 OP OH tanks in front of your base
25 Jun 2013, 20:56 PM
#6
Posts: 642
i dont know much about networks, but im inclined to aggree, why not give us something like battle.net ?
Battle.net is the result of many, many years of engineering and perfecting. Not every company can afford to pull something like that off.
25 Jun 2013, 21:04 PM
#7
Posts: 14
we've got quite a few Battle.net architecture experts frequenting these forums acting as Relic apologists.
Look For The Price Of CoH2 To Fall Under $35 USD by August 2013. Sales have been atrocious.
25 Jun 2013, 21:15 PM
#8
Posts: 77
I spent $60 on SC2 I expect similar value from other games
"sometimes effort is more important than results"
25 Jun 2013, 21:24 PM
#9
Posts: 604
I know how it feels not being able to play the game.
I started having huge problems in CoH1, other games like RUSE or Wargame and sometimes during beta of CoH2.
My connection is very good in other games, very reliable and still I had problems. And guess what? The problem was with my connection all along!
It was simply a university/dormitory connection that didn't handle the kind of forwarding needed well. But once that was updated my problems stopped and now I rarely have any problems.
So yeah, it can actually be your connection that is at fault here. Maybe try it with another router/modem etc. and check the settings and firmware versions they use. I don't know what exactly our admins changed but now it works fine.
I started having huge problems in CoH1, other games like RUSE or Wargame and sometimes during beta of CoH2.
My connection is very good in other games, very reliable and still I had problems. And guess what? The problem was with my connection all along!
It was simply a university/dormitory connection that didn't handle the kind of forwarding needed well. But once that was updated my problems stopped and now I rarely have any problems.
So yeah, it can actually be your connection that is at fault here. Maybe try it with another router/modem etc. and check the settings and firmware versions they use. I don't know what exactly our admins changed but now it works fine.
25 Jun 2013, 21:37 PM
#10
Posts: 644
And guess what? The problem was with my connection all along!
Nah, it's just the P2P system. It depends on the host obviously, if I get someone hosting in russia it's pretty much bound to be auto-GG. Sometimes the MM simply puts you up against someone from remotistan.
It's probably a good idea to forward these ports, still: https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=8571-GLVN-8711
5 OP OH tanks in front of your base
blow one up, slap it around
7 OP OH tanks in front of your base
blow one up, slap it around
7 OP OH tanks in front of your base
25 Jun 2013, 21:41 PM
#11
Posts: 1164
ITT: people having no clue what p2p is and how it works, or why it's been chosen over the other options.
25 Jun 2013, 21:46 PM
#12
Posts: 644
ITT: people having no clue what p2p is and how it works, or why it's been chosen over the other options.
enlighten us.
5 OP OH tanks in front of your base
blow one up, slap it around
7 OP OH tanks in front of your base
blow one up, slap it around
7 OP OH tanks in front of your base
25 Jun 2013, 21:54 PM
#13
Posts: 194
As someone who has programmed for a living for many years, all the posts about "just do blizzard.net how hard can it be" are lol.
blizzard.net is thousands of servers, each with their own power, bandwidth, and maintenance costs. money++ money++ money++
Besides that, they're in many different locations across the world which means interfacing with different laws, taxes, regulations. As well as maintaining local presence in those areas. money++
Then there's the complexity of the software itself. P2P is relatively simple, blizzard.net is not. Entire teams who do literally nothing but write and maintain the blizzard.net infrastructure. money++
Could go on, but that's the high level view of why.
blizzard.net is thousands of servers, each with their own power, bandwidth, and maintenance costs. money++ money++ money++
Besides that, they're in many different locations across the world which means interfacing with different laws, taxes, regulations. As well as maintaining local presence in those areas. money++
Then there's the complexity of the software itself. P2P is relatively simple, blizzard.net is not. Entire teams who do literally nothing but write and maintain the blizzard.net infrastructure. money++
Could go on, but that's the high level view of why.
25 Jun 2013, 22:23 PM
#14
Posts: 1620 | Subs: 2
we've got quite a few Battle.net architecture experts frequenting these forums acting as Relic apologists.
Oh please. Everyone knows B.net is a thousand times better than what CoH 2 has and everyone agrees that if Relic had something like Battle.net it would be better. We're just pointing out that Relic doesn't have any money, (probably because it keeps fucking up all of its games and then they die instead of selling lots of copies) so that's why we don't have a B.net sort of system in the game.
Signature by Ginnungagap
25 Jun 2013, 22:37 PM
#15
Posts: 644
As someone who has programmed for a living for many years, all the posts about "just do blizzard.net how hard can it be" are lol.
Noone here said "relic, just do blizzard.net", but it would definitely be a good idea.
obviously, shit costs money. also, obviously, there is something called cost/benefit.
5 OP OH tanks in front of your base
blow one up, slap it around
7 OP OH tanks in front of your base
blow one up, slap it around
7 OP OH tanks in front of your base
25 Jun 2013, 22:57 PM
#16
Posts: 65
Guys, its most likely that Blizzard sells soooo many more copies of SC2 that it can afford to charge considerably less for their product than Relic/Sega can on Coh2. They can also invest in battle.net because of this and the fact that there already was an existing esports community that DWARFs the amount of people who played Coh1.
25 Jun 2013, 23:09 PM
#17
Posts: 49
It is Unfortunate that Relic cant implement a Blizzard type server system but even the 100's of thousands of Copies of Sarcraft 2 that Blizzard sold cant prop up their servers. It is only affordable because of a certain MMO that still has 10 million 'subscribers' paying 10 bucks a month. Do the figures guys as to how much revenue that game generates and then you will understand why they can afford to maintain their servers. On a side note this income also lets them release horribly designed games like Diablo 3 and get canned for it but have no impact what so ever on their income stream.
As another side note, the connection issues aside with the current p2p system, its the fact that there is ZERO anti-cheat software atm that will be the nail in the coffin of this game if it isn't sorted out soon. Taking away Leaderboards. Ranks and Stats may in theory stop people from hacking because there is less reason too but it WILL NOT fix the problem as it is human nature to win in any way you can.
As another side note, the connection issues aside with the current p2p system, its the fact that there is ZERO anti-cheat software atm that will be the nail in the coffin of this game if it isn't sorted out soon. Taking away Leaderboards. Ranks and Stats may in theory stop people from hacking because there is less reason too but it WILL NOT fix the problem as it is human nature to win in any way you can.
25 Jun 2013, 23:32 PM
#18
Posts: 644
It is only affordable because of a certain MMO that still has 10 million 'subscribers' paying 10 bucks a month.
Eh? Blizzard developed their service for Warcraft II back in 1996, I don't see what WoW has to do with that.
5 OP OH tanks in front of your base
blow one up, slap it around
7 OP OH tanks in front of your base
blow one up, slap it around
7 OP OH tanks in front of your base
26 Jun 2013, 00:07 AM
#19
Posts: 49
Eh? Blizzard developed their service for Warcraft II back in 1996, I don't see what WoW has to do with that.
Since 1996 it has expanded exponentially, most days over 500 thousand people are connected to battle.net. In 1996 Warcraft 2 was still a niche game with a (comparatively to today's standards)a small community. The complexity of the systems, the locals of the servers (all over the world) and having to deal with laws/regulations /staff//maintenance in todays climate is COMPLETELY different to 1996 mate and costs a fortune.
Yes the current p2p system they have in place in COH2 is a joke but if there was and is a better/ cheaper/ more efficient way to have people connected (from all global locations) I am sure they would be using it. Ok I put this question to everyone, would people be willing to pay 5-10 dollars a month to allow relic to maintain servers across the globe? The answer is probably not and given the relatively small player base playing this game that fee may need to be substantially higher.
26 Jun 2013, 03:58 AM
#20
Posts: 642
Eh? Blizzard developed their service for Warcraft II back in 1996, I don't see what WoW has to do with that.
You mean Warcraft II Battle.net edition? The Battlenet you see there, compared to the battlenet you see now is VERY different. Hell, even the internet was very different back then (you could forgive shitty lag because, well, most games were laggy on 56k).
Lets not even go back that far: The original W3 battle.net was more CoH like in performance than the current Battle.net 2.0.
Tycho nailed it: No one is saying Bettlenet sucks, or Relic sucks, but we have to stick to reality: CoH2 doesnt have battle.net. I am willing to bet I've suffered more NAT issued on vCoH than most here, mostly because of the aweful relationship between P2P and my router, but Im not going to whine about it. Its just the way it is.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
52 | ||
 |
|
|
18 | ||
 |
|
|
10 | ||
 |
|
|
199 | ||
 |
|
|
14 | ||
 |
|
|
4 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.600215.736+15
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.1107614.643+8
- 5.305114.728+1
- 6.916405.693-2
- 7.273108.717+24
- 8.722440.621+4
- 9.261137.656+2
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1235
Board Info
538 users are online:
538 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49107
Welcome our newest member, Falac851
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Falac851
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM