By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - id: Probably No Dedicated Servers for Rage....you can thank IW shio

psychoBrew on 06 November 2009
JaggedSac said:
psychoBrew said:
salaminizer said:

yes, this misconception that it is Peer-2-Peer is buggering me for some time. it's client-server, but the server also acts as a client.

but what you're talking about isn't related to dedicated servers. host migration is what will prevent a game from ending if the server leaves. with dedicated servers if someone leaves, another person comes in (and sometimes there are even people waiting in line to join). the only cheating someone can do with this is if the server resets the score when someone leaves and join again. it happens now with most games (although in UT99 and mods it didn't).

the host will always have advantage over the others because it's him that process everything and sends back to players. so let's say he shoots someone, then he must send a message to everyone telling it, but obviously he doesn't need to send himself a message. it would be even worse if the server had a bad connection, which is something the matchmaking service will try to attenuate.


Can you still create your own custom matches with custom rules, etc., and play against random people over the net?

Probably not the bolded.  Probably need to invite them to your game.

Friend codes!!  Yay!!!



Around the Network
salaminizer on 06 November 2009

yeah, if you wanna play with random people you will have to pick a "playlist". but don't worry, if enough people want a certain playlist, auto-patching will ensure you that, as soon as possible (if budget allows, I suppose), they'll be implementing said playlist.



the words above were backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

Procrastinato on 06 November 2009
JaggedSac said:
Procrastinato said:

You guys understand that "lack of dedicated servers" doesn't mean "peer-to-peer", right?

It basically means that the "server" will be determined as the group of peers gets together, and will be "traded" to another peer, if the original "server" leaves the game.

This is part if IW's attempt to stop games from ending, just because the server left, which is something of a "cheating" mechanism for people playing on a dedicated host.

This way, yes, there will be a lag advantage, but it will probably be only for the guy who had the best (upload -- i.e. server bandwidth) connection to begin with (i.e. the guy would would have already had the lowest pings), and the rest of the game will be better off for it, because the best, of all players, would be chosen as the server, rather than some guy (who intentionally wants a lag advantage) with a cruddy connection.

Allowing the game to choose who the server is, is probably the best option for everyone playing, on the whole. The one, and only, better option would be to somehow guarantee that the dedicated server had colossal bandwidth -- in other words, was set up by a business, or by the game publisher themselves (like many of EA's games, like BF1943, or BF:BC, which have at least a few "big" dedicated servers, or Sony's games, like Warhawk, MAG, and SOCOM, etc, which are all "big" dedicated servers).

You are describing P2P.  That is exactly how Live/Halo matchmaking works.  Perhaps you are thinking we might be thinking distributed P2P with no single host box?  This P2P that is being talked about is still using the client/server model.  But there is no server involved, just a Peer that is handling all the other Peer's requests.

Okay, I can't let this go.

In a peer-to-peer system, there are NO servers.  Clients are updated AS they receive info from other clients, with no regard to synchronization via a server.  There is no server, so EACH client is authoritative over its representation on remote machines.

There is NO server in a peer-to-peer model.  Don't make me break out the Networking 101 dictionary on you, man.  Get it right.

Ever play Bolo on a Mac?  That's a good example of a peer-to-peer game.  You can't have peer-to-peer and have a server.  If it has a server, it's NOT peer-to-peer.  The matchmaking is done peer-to-peer in games like CoD:MW2.  The GAME is not.

Using "peer-to-peer" to describe CoD:MW or CoD:MW2 is a misnomer, and causes confusion in the discussion.  The real difference between the two is that one allows anyone to set their machine as a host (MW), and the other (MW2) autoselects the host for best network performance, and to recover from the host dropping.  The MW2 model IS better, for all but clan matches set up on machines with a lot of bandwidth -- and its mostly the clan folks... the dedicated players, who are the people that are complaining (of course).



 

heruamon on 06 November 2009

LOL...the beat goes on...and fans rage!



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder

Procrastinato on 06 November 2009

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.



 

Around the Network
NJ5 on 06 November 2009
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.

Dedicated servers aren't just about the lag...

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Xelloss on 06 November 2009
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.

Eh.... No....

 

 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.

 Secondly, why on earth would you claim MW2 would be less laggy for "everyday" players? Do you come from some alternate universe where people typically have OC-48 fiber optic connections to mae.east in their home or something? Not a bad place to hail from I suppose, lots of us in this universe are still stuck on shitty DSL or cable with 512kbit/s uploads or less. Even for people with 2mbit/up connections, once you start getting close to a full game, everyones latency will start spiking through the roof because many home connections start suffering frm increased latency once the upload passes 50% capacity. For some it starts at 25% of capacity.

  Go play GTA4 multiplayer on PC, then come back and tell me listen servers from home machines are any good heh. 

 

 The MW2 model is NOT better, in any way, shape , or form.... and I dispute your assertation that "hardcore" players are the ones who suffer and are complaining the most. This hurts the casual player the most, making it much more random on whether you find a good game with good people... and when you do finally luck out and find a good playing environment.... you cant somply return to the same spot tomorrow... you have to play host-finding-roulette every single time you connect.

 Fun. And casual-friendly...... (or not?).

 I am going to LMAO when IW official MW2 forums start lighting up at launch with complaints about lag, and complaints about the current host getting pissed and instead of ragequitting just fire up a fat torrent and lag everyone to death while they walk around and 0 ping.

 

 



Procrastinato on 06 November 2009
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.

Eh.... No....

 

 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.

 Secondly, why on earth would you claim MW2 would be less laggy for "everyday" players? Do you come from some alternate universe where people typically have OC-48 fiber optic connections to mae.east in their home or something? Not a bad place to hail from I suppose, lots of us in this universe are still stuck on shitty DSL or cable with 512kbit/s uploads or less. Even for people with 2mbit/up connections, once you start getting close to a full game, everyones latency will start spiking through the roof because many home connections start suffering frm increased latency once the upload passes 50% capacity. For some it starts at 25% of capacity.

  Go play GTA4 multiplayer on PC, then come back and tell me listen servers from home machines are any good heh. 

 

 The MW2 model is NOT better, in any way, shape , or form.... and I dispute your assertation that "hardcore" players are the ones who suffer and are complaining the most. This hurts the casual player the most, making it much more random on whether you find a good game with good people... and when you do finally luck out and find a good playing environment.... you cant somply return to the same spot tomorrow... you have to play host-finding-roulette every single time you connect.

 Fun. And casual-friendly...... (or not?).

 I am going to LMAO when IW official MW2 forums start lighting up at launch with complaints about lag, and complaints about the current host getting pissed and instead of ragequitting just fire up a fat torrent and lag everyone to death while they walk around and 0 ping.

 

 

You have a fascinatingly pieced-together concept of how these systems work.



 

JaggedSac on 06 November 2009
Procrastinato said:
JaggedSac said:
Procrastinato said:

You guys understand that "lack of dedicated servers" doesn't mean "peer-to-peer", right?

It basically means that the "server" will be determined as the group of peers gets together, and will be "traded" to another peer, if the original "server" leaves the game.

This is part if IW's attempt to stop games from ending, just because the server left, which is something of a "cheating" mechanism for people playing on a dedicated host.

This way, yes, there will be a lag advantage, but it will probably be only for the guy who had the best (upload -- i.e. server bandwidth) connection to begin with (i.e. the guy would would have already had the lowest pings), and the rest of the game will be better off for it, because the best, of all players, would be chosen as the server, rather than some guy (who intentionally wants a lag advantage) with a cruddy connection.

Allowing the game to choose who the server is, is probably the best option for everyone playing, on the whole. The one, and only, better option would be to somehow guarantee that the dedicated server had colossal bandwidth -- in other words, was set up by a business, or by the game publisher themselves (like many of EA's games, like BF1943, or BF:BC, which have at least a few "big" dedicated servers, or Sony's games, like Warhawk, MAG, and SOCOM, etc, which are all "big" dedicated servers).

You are describing P2P.  That is exactly how Live/Halo matchmaking works.  Perhaps you are thinking we might be thinking distributed P2P with no single host box?  This P2P that is being talked about is still using the client/server model.  But there is no server involved, just a Peer that is handling all the other Peer's requests.

Okay, I can't let this go.

In a peer-to-peer system, there are NO servers.  Clients are updated AS they receive info from other clients, with no regard to synchronization via a server.  There is no server, so EACH client is authoritative over its representation on remote machines.

There is NO server in a peer-to-peer model.  Don't make me break out the Networking 101 dictionary on you, man.  Get it right.

Ever play Bolo on a Mac?  That's a good example of a peer-to-peer game.  You can't have peer-to-peer and have a server.  If it has a server, it's NOT peer-to-peer.  The matchmaking is done peer-to-peer in games like CoD:MW2.  The GAME is not.

Using "peer-to-peer" to describe CoD:MW or CoD:MW2 is a misnomer, and causes confusion in the discussion.  The real difference between the two is that one allows anyone to set their machine as a host (MW), and the other (MW2) autoselects the host for best network performance, and to recover from the host dropping.  The MW2 model IS better, for all but clan matches set up on machines with a lot of bandwidth -- and its mostly the clan folks... the dedicated players, who are the people that are complaining (of course).

I think using peer to peer to describe any current online game(at least for games with more than 2 players) using your definition would be a falacy.  I don't know of any recent game that does not have one single entity handling the game updates. Perhaps I, and others on the net, was considering the "host" in these situations to be a peer because it was handling both client requests, creating it's own game altering data, and also running the exact same software as the clients.  But, it appears, that you are correct.

I guess the correct terminology for MW2(and most Live games) would be, player hosted matches created using a peer 2 peer matchmaking system.  I will, from now on, use this terminology to describe Live's service.  As it does seem more correct.  No more people bitching about console P2P crap I guess :)



JaggedSac on 06 November 2009
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?