JaggedSac said:
Xelloss said:
Procrastinato said:
I stand by my claim that MW2 will be less laggy for "everyday" CoD players, even if the few clan players have a slightly more laggy experience. Since it'll be the same for all parties, it shouldn't be a big deal.
The whining is unwarranted. |
Sorry man, you are way off base here. Plus peer to peer is a proper description of MW2 system, though one peer will indeed be running whats known in the vernacular as a listen server, it is still basically a peer 2 peer connection because peer in this case refers to the fact that it will always be a retail end-user running the listen server from his home machine. Terms have different meanings in different context, this is why a dictionary will have multiple entries for the same word. Such is the case here, it is not us who fail to realize the "networking" definition of p2p is, it is you who fail to understand the context.
|
The bolded is what I though. Then I thought I was wrong after reading Procrastinato. What is right people?
|
Both are, actually. It is a matter of context and usage. Procrastinato was basically arguing semantics.
From a technical standpoint, he was correct to state that there is no server in a true peer to peer networking model. However people describe MW2 system as peer2peer for lack of a better term to fully convey the idea that not only will MW2 be hosted by the end-user, but will be hosted from the same game client you play the game from. This is accepted usage typically, for the simple reason that while you could use more technically accurate terms for MW2 type system, it would be even more confusing to people who generally know little or nothing about such things.
