• Tahl_eN@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    P to P is potentially laggier, especially in farther-flung areas. It’s less secure, since the server is someone’s machine. So it’s easier for cheaters to do their thing. You also need to run a whole server alongside the client, so you need to leave a reasonable amount of perf overhead on your recommended machine that you could otherwise dedicate to just running the client.

    That said, it’s cheaper to run and easier to maintain at EoL. So tradeoffs.

    • Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Tbh that’s why community servers+p2p are the best options to have for a game - people are more than happy to host their own servers for friends and the public, and the dev doesn’t have to worry about perpetual infrastructure upkeep. Win-win.

      • femtek@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah, I missed that from the battlefield games, being able to join non dec hosted servers was the best of both worlds. Didn’t have to join a discord server to make a party but could still play on the same server enough to make friends.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      It isn’t laggier though… I mean anything has the potential to be laggy, sure. But if you’re in Europe, play on EU servers, if you’re on the US East Coast, play on East Coast servers. This isn’t rocket science.

      It isn’t inherently less secure either, any server is someone else’s. In fact, I trust other players far more than I trust the publisher or whoever they’re contracting with for game servers. The players aren’t looking for additional revenue streams.

      For most games, the performance hit for running the server is not significant. I think the majority of this post is pretty misguided.

    • Err(()).unwrap()@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Warframe’s multiplayer sessions are hosted by the players, and you can feel when the game is hosted on a Switch. The ping is consistent around 300 ms (which is not good, but about average for the EU region), but every action will have a second of latency and the enemies will constantly rubber-band around.

      • Leon@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Wait they managed to cram hosting onto the Switch? That’s bananas. I don’t play in public most of the time so I’ve never experienced this.

        • Err(()).unwrap()@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          17 hours ago

          The Switch port is handled by Panic Button, the same studio that developed the Doom 2016 port. It’s impressive work considering the hardware limitations, but the introduction of cross-platform play made the gap between it and other platforms impossible to ignore.

          • Leon@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            48 minutes ago

            Ah, yeah I can see that being a problem in the long run. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if they eventually drop the original Switch.

      • MrQuallzin@pie.eyeofthestorm.place
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        24 hours ago

        I keep thinking about jumping back into Warframe but feel intimidated whenever I open it. Got a fancy character I don’t remember how to play (Necros or something?), and I have no clue where to go once I’m in.

        Any good resources for returning players?