Shock, multiplayer is peer to peer!

[Dalv]

This doesnt only have lag implications.
If the player who hosted the game loses the mothership and leaves the game, then the game has to switch host to another player. This process takes a long time, I'm talking minutes, but most of the times it just doesn't work, the game freezes while waiting for the host transition.
So 2v2 or 3v3 games are almost unplayable.

[Muad'Dib]

Don't play with random slavs with dial up connections in their old rusted out cold war factories, then? I don't know what you expect from a niche RTS game franchise that, even in it's prime, had a really tiny multiplayer community compared to other RTS games(Which were already small communities by default). What, are you expecting some master server with a party system and an automatch setup like overwatch? For a handful of servers?

Trust me, not being reliant on a master server is going to be a good thing years down the road if people want to actually come back and play the game after it's support cycle is over.

[Real Slick 1]

Play after it's support cycle is over?

Bro you will be lucky to see the menu let alone play any offline game let alone online 😅

[Dalv]

Originally posted by Muad'Dib:

Don't play with random slavs with dial up connections in their old rusted out cold war factories, then? I don't know what you expect from a niche RTS game franchise that, even in it's prime, had a really tiny multiplayer community compared to other RTS games(Which were already small communities by default). What, are you expecting some master server with a party system and an automatch setup like overwatch? For a handful of servers?

Trust me, not being reliant on a master server is going to be a good thing years down the road if people want to actually come back and play the game after it's support cycle is over.

And how do I know who's got what connection and which player to pick. It's not like the game even has a latency or ping listing. Please think before you type.
They had plenty of budget and also a fig campaign. We are not talking about an indie dev. And it doesnt have to be Overwatch. What are we? Still in '99? Any RTS out there now has server infrastructure for multiplayer, from barely played games like Iron Harvest or CoH3 to bigger ones like Age of Empires 2.

[Azu]

I spent the last hour in lobby because:
- connection to host lost
- players desync
- lobby doesn't exist
- game already started

[Muad'Dib]

Originally posted by Dalv:

Originally posted by Muad'Dib:

Don't play with random slavs with dial up connections in their old rusted out cold war factories, then? I don't know what you expect from a niche RTS game franchise that, even in it's prime, had a really tiny multiplayer community compared to other RTS games(Which were already small communities by default). What, are you expecting some master server with a party system and an automatch setup like overwatch? For a handful of servers?

Trust me, not being reliant on a master server is going to be a good thing years down the road if people want to actually come back and play the game after it's support cycle is over.

And how do I know who's got what connection and which player to pick. It's not like the game even has a latency or ping listing. Please think before you type.
They had plenty of budget and also a fig campaign. We are not talking about an indie dev. And it doesnt have to be Overwatch. What are we? Still in '99? Any RTS out there now has server infrastructure for multiplayer, from barely played games like Iron Harvest or CoH3 to bigger ones like Age of Empires 2.

Again, it's homeworld, what are you expecting? This isn't SupCom, or CoH, or Starcraft, or AoE. There's not that many players and there never will be because there never was.

I can tell you don't actually play RTS if you're spouting those takes, because the vast majority of them have an identical setup in multiplayer to HW3. No one is going to make big, complex multiplayer systems with high upkeep costs just for the 100-300 people that regularly play online a month after release when all of the fly-by-night gamers move on to the next fad and hype machine.

If you're that worried about lag, host a match yourself. Again, it's a tiny niche community, if you're expecting Helldivers, go play helldivers.

[Vault Traveler]

Originally posted by Muad'Dib:

Originally posted by Dalv:

And how do I know who's got what connection and which player to pick. It's not like the game even has a latency or ping listing. Please think before you type.
They had plenty of budget and also a fig campaign. We are not talking about an indie dev. And it doesnt have to be Overwatch. What are we? Still in '99? Any RTS out there now has server infrastructure for multiplayer, from barely played games like Iron Harvest or CoH3 to bigger ones like Age of Empires 2.

Again, it's homeworld, what are you expecting? This isn't SupCom, or CoH, or Starcraft, or AoE. There's not that many players and there never will be because there never was.

I can tell you don't actually play RTS if you're spouting those takes, because the vast majority of them have an identical setup in multiplayer to HW3. No one is going to make big, complex multiplayer systems with high upkeep costs just for the 100-300 people that regularly play online a month after release when all of the fly-by-night gamers move on to the next fad and hype machine.

If you're that worried about lag, host a match yourself. Again, it's a tiny niche community, if you're expecting Helldivers, go play helldivers.

Wow you are just talking nonsense.

[Cizjut]

Originally posted by Muad'Dib:

Originally posted by Dalv:

And how do I know who's got what connection and which player to pick. It's not like the game even has a latency or ping listing. Please think before you type.
They had plenty of budget and also a fig campaign. We are not talking about an indie dev. And it doesnt have to be Overwatch. What are we? Still in '99? Any RTS out there now has server infrastructure for multiplayer, from barely played games like Iron Harvest or CoH3 to bigger ones like Age of Empires 2.

Again, it's homeworld, what are you expecting? This isn't SupCom, or CoH, or Starcraft, or AoE. There's not that many players and there never will be because there never was.

I can tell you don't actually play RTS if you're spouting those takes, because the vast majority of them have an identical setup in multiplayer to HW3. No one is going to make big, complex multiplayer systems with high upkeep costs just for the 100-300 people that regularly play online a month after release when all of the fly-by-night gamers move on to the next fad and hype machine.

If you're that worried about lag, host a match yourself. Again, it's a tiny niche community, if you're expecting Helldivers, go play helldivers.

"Well it was ♥♥♥♥ on the other entries too so why bother?"
This is how you sound.
And the other entries had a very very decent MP considering their age.

[Muad'Dib]

Originally posted by Cizjut:

Originally posted by Muad'Dib:

Again, it's homeworld, what are you expecting? This isn't SupCom, or CoH, or Starcraft, or AoE. There's not that many players and there never will be because there never was.

I can tell you don't actually play RTS if you're spouting those takes, because the vast majority of them have an identical setup in multiplayer to HW3. No one is going to make big, complex multiplayer systems with high upkeep costs just for the 100-300 people that regularly play online a month after release when all of the fly-by-night gamers move on to the next fad and hype machine.

If you're that worried about lag, host a match yourself. Again, it's a tiny niche community, if you're expecting Helldivers, go play helldivers.

"Well it was ♥♥♥♥ on the other entries too so why bother?"
This is how you sound.
And the other entries had a very very decent MP considering their age.

No, no they didn't, quit lying about things you never even participated in. HW remastered was dead in a month, and the originals never had living multiplayers either(Seriously, people only used it for mods in skirmish with bots).

You just have unrealistic expectations and think a turbo-niche RTS game with a community that's small even by the standards of the RTS genre, one of the smallest genre communities in gaming, is going to give you the same multiplayer experience as games with 2000% the population online.

[Dalv]

Originally posted by Muad'Dib:

Originally posted by Dalv:

And how do I know who's got what connection and which player to pick. It's not like the game even has a latency or ping listing. Please think before you type.
They had plenty of budget and also a fig campaign. We are not talking about an indie dev. And it doesnt have to be Overwatch. What are we? Still in '99? Any RTS out there now has server infrastructure for multiplayer, from barely played games like Iron Harvest or CoH3 to bigger ones like Age of Empires 2.

Again, it's homeworld, what are you expecting? This isn't SupCom, or CoH, or Starcraft, or AoE. There's not that many players and there never will be because there never was.

I can tell you don't actually play RTS if you're spouting those takes, because the vast majority of them have an identical setup in multiplayer to HW3. No one is going to make big, complex multiplayer systems with high upkeep costs just for the 100-300 people that regularly play online a month after release when all of the fly-by-night gamers move on to the next fad and hype machine.

If you're that worried about lag, host a match yourself. Again, it's a tiny niche community, if you're expecting Helldivers, go play helldivers.

What am I expecting? Well to play and enjoy the things which are offered, no? So they are giving me a game which has multiplayer and team pvp, and you're telling me it's normal that it wont work because it's not Starcraft or AoE. No, I expect to be able to play multiplayer and team pvp because I paid for a product which advertised these as available. It's just common sense. Our standards have dropped so low that now it's normal for half the game (multiplayer) to not work?

I can tell you that I do play RTS, quite a lot actually, it's my main thing in video games, so please stop talking about Helldivers and Overwatch, because you are the one who doesnt know that RTS games have good multiplayer integration too. Because no, the majority of RTS today do have a functional setup for the world we live in today, which is internet connection worldwide, not LAN parties with 2 neighbours because this is not '99 anymore.

It doesnt matter that much if I host the game myself or not when the game is peer to peer and others are having issues, it means we all experience the same issues. That's what peer to peer is. It's not a dedicated server with properly configured ports and availability.

If you only play RTS solo, good for you, but dont act like they are designed to be played that way, HW included.

[Muad'Dib]

Originally posted by Dalv:

Originally posted by Muad'Dib:

Again, it's homeworld, what are you expecting? This isn't SupCom, or CoH, or Starcraft, or AoE. There's not that many players and there never will be because there never was.

I can tell you don't actually play RTS if you're spouting those takes, because the vast majority of them have an identical setup in multiplayer to HW3. No one is going to make big, complex multiplayer systems with high upkeep costs just for the 100-300 people that regularly play online a month after release when all of the fly-by-night gamers move on to the next fad and hype machine.

If you're that worried about lag, host a match yourself. Again, it's a tiny niche community, if you're expecting Helldivers, go play helldivers.

What am I expecting? Well to play and enjoy the things which are offered, no? So they are giving me a game which has multiplayer and team pvp, and you're telling me it's normal that it wont work because it's not Starcraft or AoE. No, I expect to be able to play multiplayer and team pvp because I paid for a product which advertised these as available. It's just common sense. Our standards have dropped so low that now it's normal for half the game (multiplayer) to not work?

I can tell you that I do play RTS, quite a lot actually, it's my main thing in video games, so please stop talking about Helldivers and Overwatch, because you are the one who doesnt know that RTS games have good multiplayer integration too. Because no, the majority of RTS today do have a functional setup for the world we live in today, which is internet connection worldwide, not LAN parties with 2 neighbours because this is not '99 anymore.

It doesnt matter that much if I host the game myself or not when the game is peer to peer and others are having issues, it means we all experience the same issues. That's what peer to peer is. It's not a dedicated server with properly configured ports and availability.

If you only play RTS solo, good for you, but dont act like they are designed to be played that way, HW included.

It does work though. WTF are you talking about? I've been playing multiplayer just fine since Friday.

I don't even understand what you're complaining about. Asking for a crazy automatch system for a tiny pool of players isn't realistic. What's so hard about just clicking 'join lobby'? Or hosting your own? This isn't Overwatch, my dude, there isn't thousands of people waiting to queue with you.

[Dalv]

It does not work, it doesnt not serve its purpose as I've very clearly explained here.

And why do you think HW3 ends up having 100-300 players like you say in the first place? Because of crap like this that doesnt work. Thats the reason. It's not the singleplayer where people finish the campaign and mind their business, it's the multiplayer. That's what retains a big community for an RTS.