🛈 Announcement
Greetings! Far Cry forums are now archived and accessible in read-only mode, please go to the new platform to discuss the game.
  1. #41
    they need some sort of country filter for this garbage, there is no reason players from one country should be playing with people from across the globe or worse yet players from 10 different countries all playing together where everyone accept the host has 1 red ping bar, p2p isn't meant for that type of connection, so you end up with 3 second delay from user action to actual game reaction. Even iwnet has limits on max ping. I backed out of 6 game in a row because it was so pathetic watching people lag around that map, I then joined a game where I had 2 orange bars but somehow the game let some guy with a netbook host which wasnt any better than the last 5 games. Is this the best ubi can do?
    Share this post

  2. #42
    IceT-Bag's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,157
    I think FC3 as a game is very well done, better than FC2 and more in touch with the original FC1.

    However, I'm just astonished at the MP, you'd think with all the mass discussion comparing P2P vs Dedicated Servers (DS) for PC's on gaming forums the world over that no one in their right mind would put their hand up in the FC3 meeting room and say "this game needs a P2P system on the PC".

    P2P works well on consoles, they have identical hardware and software so the only variable is the internet connection. On a PC its not that simple, not only does the internet connection vary, but the hardware and software also varies and this affects the performance from one pc to another. Sure they may think they have some cool algorithm for the PC P2P to make sure the best PC is hosting - but in the real world it doesn't seem to be the case.

    I had an hour and half to kill one day and thought I'd get some FC3 MP action in, I kid you not I managed to play about 6 seconds in all that time, the rest of the time I was facing "Host Migration" which never seemed to migrate successfully or I was stuck on the "Loading" screen and didn't even get as far as being in game. I don't think anyone will argue that this is shocking and for such a well polished title leaves end users wondering how they dropped the ball with this part of the game.

    With a DS setup and a built-in server browser that lets you filter via country, ping, map, game-mode to name a few, the end user has the freedom of choice. They can choose to join the best server for them at that time (based on their filter criteria), they wont have to put up with host migration several times during a match which kills the flow of the game for everyone (more so in a gun fight), there wont be a host player with an advantage, the DS will have a better internet connection than most of the players connected, a DS with a ban list can improve the gaming experience for all connected players by preventing offensive/malicious players from joining the DS.

    I'm sure most of us are familiar with the arguments for P2P over DS such as Admins abusing their power and the costs of renting a DS. I would counter-argue that people who love this game will be happy to rent servers at cost (more so clans, but you do get individuals too), yes there will always be small minority of idiot admins who ban players for poor reasons - but the player has the choice to avoid those servers. With a DS end users will have a better online gaming experience.

    I hope Ubisoft will do the right thing and release a DS package for this game, the little MP I have played is enjoyable but for now I'm losing interest due to the constant issues with this unwanted and doomed to failure P2P system on the PC platform.
    Share this post

  3. #43
    GFE-Dutch's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Arnhem
    Posts
    97
    And I thought my PC was going bad.
    I formatted it and reinstalled only Far Cry 1, 2 and 3.
    Hmmm. I do miss Far Cry 2. Only bad thing was, you had to wait for everyone to press ready in the lobby.
    Share this post

  4. #44
    given the skill level of the devs who made fc3 it would probably take them just as long to make a ds package as it did the game itself, the thought that they should have some sort of algorithm to determine who gets host didn't even cross their minds, it just picks randomly and usually its someone who can barely run the game to start with. I thought the worst matchmaking system in history was iwnet but now after seeing fc3's shallow system I'd give anything for this games matchmaking system to work even remotely as good.
    Share this post

  5. #45
    RAPXTOR's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    1,016
    Originally Posted by XAFAfterShock Go to original post
    given the skill level of the devs who made fc3 it would probably take them just as long to make a ds package as it did the game itself, the thought that they should have some sort of algorithm to determine who gets host didn't even cross their minds, it just picks randomly and usually its someone who can barely run the game to start with. I thought the worst matchmaking system in history was iwnet but now after seeing fc3's shallow system I'd give anything for this games matchmaking system to work even remotely as good.
    I understand you, even that I prefer Server Browser over any P2P system, I think its not fair to compare IWnet with this FC3, today I still play on IWnet from time to time, and I always find games, Play the game until the end, even with host migrations bc there will be always players that leave the game before the end, and most games that I play, run very smootly, so, its no way near the FC3 experience, I know that if I wasnt a GRFS player, I was still playing FC3 Multiplayer, but I simple cannot let 2 games consume the little time I have free to play video games, waiting to find matches, losing connection almost at the end of the game, constant lagg and so on.
    Share this post

  6. #46
    How is it possible that almost every time the game offers the same players the favour of being host, or having a solid connection to the host??? I almost never end up on the good part of the connection and see the same lame SMG-running bastards kill the whole bunch of guys without getting killed themselves. You just don't get a shot, because before your second of lag is over, you're dead as dust. Your bullets fired don't even register, because the other guys still has 100% health.

    Besides, lots of ppl (happen to be the same guys that have nice ping) have bullets that kill instantly. I mean, I tend to snipe from nearly the maximum distance, but before I can actually aim and fire, the guy kills me with his freaking Vector. One or 2 bullets of that weapon and I'm toast. What advantage has my sniper rifle then??????????

    Maybe that's a combo of cheating and having the lag-advantage. But why on earth it's always the same guys having the freaking advantage??? The host-pick doesn't seem to be that random then anyway.

    I have a fast connection (60MBS down and 6MBS up) and a fast PC with high-end hardware. I live in NL so quite a crowded location. Then what on earth is keeping me from being host every once in a while??

    Edit: I don't claim to be a top quality player, and I know there are better players that aim faster and better than me. But I know I don't completely suck at it, and I do have my sporadic experiences that I am on the good end of the lagging. I get loads of kills then, and like I described, my bullets instantly kill foes, without even aiming straight. So don't get me wrong: I know I'm not the best, don't pretend to be. But I definitely know that others have an unfair advantage, and they are always the same guys.
    Share this post

Page 5 of 5 ◄◄  First ... 345