Thermite said:
I said what I said because in the original post I replied to, you came off as a Microsoft spokesperson. It was meant to be a bit of a joke.
Fine dude. I just don't find it funny. And it detracts from the issue at hand and just seemed like an easy way to dismiss my position.
Thermite said:
I don't even know how to respond to this. I mean, you're essentially saying if someone thinks that a particular platform has a superior online experience and functionality that they shouldn't ask for those same features to come to another platform. Wow.
I think it's wanting one product's features to hop other to another when both base products themselves aren't compatible. I don't think plugging in dedicated servers is a magical band aid just games on another service predominately use them.
I also think the console environment and PC environment in terms of online games are vastly differently, despite surface similarities.
Thermite said:
Did I say they were going to happen? Nope. All I said is that people have a right to express their desires to see such features come to XBL (or any service that doesn't have them for that matter).
Folks do have that right and I'm not advocating taking that away from anyone. However there's a difference between constructively expressing your desires and out and out whining for the sake of it. HaloGAF is notorious for post-game stress release posting and venting. I've done my fair share and I don't mistake that for something it isn't.
Thermite said:
Is the comparison so silly? I don't know, I don't think it is at all. My point was that if people never complained about something that was less than desirable, or made suggestions on how to improve an experience, would any company really just decide to make changes out of the blue? I'm not so sure. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
I think the treat of stagnation in a competitive environment is enough to drive change on its own. Not that that's how things are done and should be done.
You did have a point about a popular demand turning into an actual feature, I just the perspective on the scale is skewed here. The most vocal complains online translate into the smallest segment of the audience having the loudest voice. With Bloom, it was inevitable that any TU had to make changes. Ultimately, the Bloom changes will have a small and limited impact and that is reflective of the true size of the audience wanting it.
Thermite said:
I don't think they're a magical cure either. What I do think is that it makes the online gaming experience better. Which do you prefer: European hosts or European dedicated servers?
I've never played on many games with Euro servers. They usually die out fast with older games. =P
Obviously if I had the choice, I'd want the best experience, so I'd choice which option would give it to me.
Thermite said:
Trueskill, matchmaking, and all the other online functionality really doesn't have much to do with how a bullet is perceived on host and off, does it? Maybe I'm wrong here, but I don't think it does. If someone who shouldn't be getting host, does (and there are plenty of instances where this happens), it makes the experience completely unenjoyable for everyone involved except the host.
I agree. Poor hosts leads to bad experiences. I think Reach demonstrates an evolution of the host selection going on behind the scenes, in addition to the better netcode. My main beef is host migration. Host sometimes never leaves a bad host and sometimes leaves a good host for a bad one and more than half the games I play are interrupted by seemingly pointless but consistently annoying host migration.
Dedicated servers would in fact fix this but I think it's like treating a foot injury by cutting off the leg.
Thermite said:
Are you really telling me that you have a more enjoyable experience with a random, unknown American host than a dedicated server that is in the US? Really?
I've played with good and bad US players and thus hosts. If a US server gives me a bad experience then it will always give me a bad experience. If a game gives me a US host and I have a bad experience, then at least I can hope for an improvement in the next game.
Thermite said:
I definitely wouldn't. Again, wouldn't region filtering help keep US folks again US folks, and European folks against European folks? Granted there will be definitely be situations where, in order to get a game, you'll be matched up against people outside your region, but I still can't help but feel a dedicated server would be better than p2p. At the very least, you wouldn't have to worry about a single person having an automatic advantage due to him/her having host.
I don't think having host is a significant advantage. I remember when Reach came out many of the folks here were complimenting the game because it was seemless enough they couldn't even tell who was host.
Whilst dedicated serves would remove this slight advantage, it wouldn't do anything to improve the experience for the player that have a bad connection to the server. Those players would never be able to hope for an improved experience with that server as it would always be fixed. They either have to leave or deal with it.
I think you are right about the increase in US versus US and Euro versus Euro situations. Games would be increasingly split between geographies. The disadvantage here is that the more servers and players a country has, the better the experience for players in that particular country and vice versa for the worse an experience gets the less servers per country.
Additionally, although cross geographical matches would be rarer overall, players' already thin tolerances (going by reactions here) for games with sub-optimal connections would be stretched to breaking point. Folks would be increasingly likely to simply refuse to play on non-regional servers.
Thermite said:
Smarter men than me or you could find a bunch of solutions to this problem, I'm sure, but two simple solutions come to mind: A)only get enough servers that the costs handle for non-NA residents and B) allow p2p to handle the situations where the UK folks are playing with UK folks while the servers are full.
I think a mix would be interesting - didn't the Gears 3 beta try this? I have no idea about the results of that kind of experiment of what you would be able to learn from it. It it mitigates any of the negatives that I've pointed out, I think it might be worth looking into maybe. But I just don't know.
Thermite said:
Joining any host that isn't located in your particular region is definitely obvious and off-putting. I really don't see how an individual host is better than a dedicated server. In or out of the country.
Hosts change every match. One poor games doesn't mean the next one will be poor. The varying host conditions are something that I have gotten used to. I can play folks from France, Denmark, Spain and from one coast of America to the other with very little difference overall. Occasionally there will be a shitty host, but shitty hosts aren't exclusive to one country.
I don't think you'd get that range of players or that kind of experience using dedicated servers exclusively.