Junior Member
Let me get this out of the way for all the people ready to defend Ubisoft and the developers. Yes, the game is fun, it's a good 3d fighting game with the flexibility to include other game modes like capture point. The marketing of this game has been great, it's used celebrities, twitch partners, and made deals to be advertised on Youtube and other social media.
However, the reason we as consumers should not purchase or pre-order this game is the design choice of Peer to Peer. Ubisoft and the dev team should take this not as a criticism but as a warning. For Honor will fail should they stay with this path of peer to peer. Many great multiplayer games that try to put the burden on the consumer to host matches have always failed to be a long lasting and more importantly profitable game. Games like Space Marine 40k had an amazing multiplayer scene but failed because of Peer to Peer.
For those that don't know what Peer to Peer is, Peer to Peer (P2P) is a design in which a group of computers are not relying on a server but instead a computer within the group will be responsible for the burden of sending and receiving data to the group. So for example, in a dominion match consisting of eight players, one of the players will be designated as "host" and the remaining players will be reliant on their connection to receive all inputs and to maintain a connection to stay in the match. Should the designated host have a poor computer in terms of specs, a poor wireless or wired connection (dial up, satellite, etc), or poor internet speed will heavily affect the match. Results of having even one of these factors can lead to matches dropping, players disconnecting, or delayed inputs.
This is the factor as to why this game will not last the flavor of the week/month test. On the technical side, the average consumer does not have a decent internet connection. Many homes across the USA are still reliant on satellite or even dial up. Even if you do have a quality speed, many consumers have opted for wireless connectivity or forced into that choice due to the location of the router.
But how does this affect the gameplay? Well at its core, For Honor is a 3d fighting game. Mechanics are dependent on players performing combos and any delay is deemed unacceptable as every frame and input counts. What separates For Honor from Street Fighter and other fighting games is that their fighting games are 1v1. This game offers 1v1 but it also offers 2v2, and 4v4 game modes. That's four and eight players that have to maintain a connection to a random host across the USA or potentially the world.
Now imagine playing any other or your favorite multiplayer game where you are reliant on some random person to keep you connected in a match. Your inputs delayed, you or your opponents position isn't what it appears to be, where you didn't pick up a health pack that was there but instead was given to another player because they were given priority. All of these in your favorite strategy game, FPS, Third Person Shooter, MMO, all would be considered unacceptable and unplayable.
Ubisoft and Blue Byte, if you want this game to succeed in the long run and maintain a dedicated player base you need to implement dedicated servers. I understand that you do save a lot of money by designing the game to be peer to peer. However, with how much marketing and time you as a company have invested in this game it will be a success you throw away if you don't give the game the support it deserves. You've marketed this game and pulled out all the stops. You got celebrity support, you contracted youtubers and twitch streamers to promote your game and you dominate ad space to be the game of the week. That is millions of consumers ready to buy your game. But they won't be retained when they find out that the majority of their games will results in disconnects or find that they are losing due to input delays or where another player is given priority. This will be the game that Ubisoft can point to on how to do a 3D fighting gaming right.
This game will fail if you don't give the game the support it deserves. For Honor deserves dedicated server support. Don't skimp out and try and save money with how gigantic you are as a publisher in the video game industry.
EDIT:
I see a lot of posts here go "Saw P2P, stopped reading".
And credit to Mister.Genji for linking me to ubisoft's post on how they are doing their online system because that if anything only strengthens my argument on why you shouldn't support this game if it maintains P2P. And I will admit, it is not the traditional Peer to Peer system. However, it is still Peer to Peer.
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...-Online-System
http://static2.cdn.ubi.com/ForHonor/online_graph.png
I want you to look at the second link which is utilized in link posted above the picture. That is their description of their online system for their game For Honor. And I want you too read their post carefully and look at the picture carefully. They state that their system is not traditional Peer to Peer, they are correct in that. However, and this is where the picture comes into play. Ubisoft states that
"During matches, every player runs a synchronized simulation and the game is played without any game host; all players are sending to all players what they are doing without the need of any answers from the other players thanks to the simulation."
So looking at the picture, everyone has to be connected and on the same page before the match can continue. So, while there is no singular host, they made there system where everyone is the host. Because if you notice the one thing missing from their diagram that still makes it peer to peer is the lack of a server.
The cons of peer to peer still exists. Except now instead of simply blaming one person for a poor connection, you now get to blame up to SEVEN other people for not having a quality internet connection and being unable to send and receive the inputs to other players.
Everything else in that post is marketing and while it is a neat trick, this model is only ideal in situations for multiplayer games that are more LAN/WAN focused. Not on a national or global scale.
Remember, if there isn't a server doing the hosting, it is still peer to peer. No matter how you spin it.
And let me put in one more final word. I want this game to succeed in the long run and I want to play more of For Honor. But the network connectivity solution for online play is an unacceptable solution for how many units this game will push. The only proper solution is dedicated servers.
EDIT 2: You know, there are times that I hate but I found a fix that is simple and not listed under their troubleshooting for PC.
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...roubleshooting
So the thing that isn't listed and actually fixed my problem wasn't the port forwarding, or making sure the game Forhonor.exe was allowed through the firewall, nor clearing my background applications, or resetting my hosts file.
The ONE thing that actually finally resolved my problem was to let Uplay.exe through the firewall. Which is strange because you have to add that application onto the firewall list manually. Which doesn't make sense as I was able to run Uplay, run For Honor and not have any windows message to allow Uplay.exe through the firewall.
I still think this game deserves dedicated servers as I did still have times where a person would rage quit and the entire match would drop but going from 90% disconnect from matches down to 10% is a pretty big improvement. An improvement, but not a solution that this game deserves.
EDIT 4: I can't believe I'm coming back to this thread but now I'm back where I started...
Yeah I can play the game on 4v4 deathmatch or dominion again. And even the 1v1 and 2v2 are 50/50 at best. I had hope and the reality of the situation is that despite having a 30 mbps up/5 mbps down and a computer with the last of the 5th gen I7 and a GTX 1070 shows me that this game will fail because of peer to peer and not dedicated servers. Ya got a great game Ubisoft but I can't buy your game given that you won't give it the proper support it deserves.
Member
Hi,
"Ubisoft and the dev team should take this not as a criticism but as a warning" funny you mention this, but this game is just a repeat of Rainbow Six: Siege. Multiplayer based game which does multiplayer absolutely wrong. It was an utter fail then and it is a giant fail now. The game may be good, but it can only be good if you can actually play it (which is not the case).
I remember the time I lost with R6: Siege asking for help in these forums, only to have the idiots (sorry, but it is the only accurate term to refer to anyone that works on their support team) tell you that this is your fault, open this port and that, disable background applications (I laughed quite hard when I heard this the first time xD), and all manner of dumb stuff, when it is clear that the problem is on their side and due to their own stupidity. Even when trying the Betas my NAT indicator was going from green to red from time to time, which was at that time I knew this would fail with the same issues R6 did. The only game in around 15 years of playing games online without any problem to fail so badly and with such a bad support team.
It's amazing that they didn't learn from their previous experience, goes to show how dumb some people can be.
I most certainly will not buy this game and thankfully have been able to stop all my friends from doing it as well, and stay away from Ubisoft garbage. Just by showing them how the experience was with R6 and even talking about The Division for a bit will convince anyone that this company has no clue how to make a decent online game
It is a real shame that such a big company can't compare to any other online game and make such silly mistakes recurrently.
Junior Member
Member
I stopped reading at P2P.
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...-Online-System
Member
I've played many games with an host sistem (the cod series till bo2 comes easily to mind) and while it can't be negated that giving at one player the "control" of the match fluidity is bad(especially with the combat system that we have)I've rarely experienced problems.I played the beta for about 10 hours,in every mode,and lagged in 1 of 2 games out of the total,with a 10 Mbs connection.
While I can't find problems in game,the 1v1 seems to be buggy,it takes an eternity to find a game (even with 130k people on,other modes are way faster).There are also some errors that block the matchmaking.
All in all,this are the major flaw of the game imo.But doing pvp in the souls was way worst than this,phantom range and teleports were common.That's why I'm going to buy it at day 1,when hopefully 1v1 matchmaking will be fixed.
Banned
Member
Junior Member
It is funny how Ubisoft can spend however much it takes to market the game and try to get people to buy it, just to skimp out and be as cheap they possibly can for something that actually matters and would eliminate almost all of their user complaints, and show some integrity for the products they wish to sell consumers. Overwatch didn't become the next biggest multiplayer game on the scene JUST from the game alone, it used dedicated servers and they even went the extra mile to use high-bandwidth servers so players had consistent and rewarding matches, which brought them back for me. The current state of the connectivity is only turning myself away, in addition to the majority of players I have spoken with on the game. It's just messed up.
Member
That's exactly what For Honor is NOT doing, as explained here: http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...-Online-SystemOriginally Posted by Tenmar Go to original post
I'm not saying there aren't connectivity issues, but at least get your facts straight.
Junior Member
@Tenmar
What to add at your pinpointed post? Well just...Peer2Peer in 2017 would be the easiest answer.
It's possible that only The Blizzard and few Others are able to make Perfect AAA Game since the open beta?!
I can truly say that if For Honor would had dedicated servers the Community Support section of this forum Would be almost empty, but is an expansive solution...#NoBalls
my preorder? lel
