Future multi suggestion

[K.B.] Napalm Cobra · Post by **[K.B.] Napalm Cobra** » 07 Apr 2005, 07:55

This isn't an idea for the first version, but later on if its possible could we have teh multiplayer client as a sort of serverless p2p style. That way if for some reason the game server went down we wouldn't be reduced to trying to find ip's and such.

jouninkomiko · Post by **jouninkomiko** » 07 Apr 2005, 08:19

you can't really have a "true" serverless p2p system. you need some way for the clients to be able to find eachother. ie bit torrent uses a tracker and so on

Post by SJ » 07 Apr 2005, 08:46

Well you could do it the freenet way where you only need the ip of one client connected to the network. But it would be very wastefull and not very much worth doing.

AF · Post by AF » 07 Apr 2005, 10:05

Or you could use a self organising p2p system with supernodes, using something like a list of php pages with a list of them on multiple sites acros the web.

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 07 Apr 2005, 22:29

Why the hell would you want to code something like that? There's a perfectly good server right here.

You know, just because a feature is possible doesn't mean its good.

[K.B.] Napalm Cobra · Post by **[K.B.] Napalm Cobra** » 07 Apr 2005, 23:50

When their server went down for a while not that long ago, that would have stopped the multi lobby

AF · Post by AF » 08 Apr 2005, 11:04

Also with a centralised system you have bandwidth problems when there are lots of users online, and it costs more to run than a p2p system which would cost the SY's absolutely nothing. It would also simplify things on large LAN's that have no Net access.

jouninkomiko · Post by **jouninkomiko** » 08 Apr 2005, 20:08

can't you understand it can't be done? it's like saying AIDS sucks, so we should just get rid of it.

Archangel of Death · Post by **Archangel of Death** » 08 Apr 2005, 20:26

Its seems the only possible solution would be to send them thousands of dollars to get back-up servers. (jk, sorta

)

zwzsg · Post by **zwzsg** » 08 Apr 2005, 21:05

As long as you play via IP, I don't see the need for a huge "P2P network".

Torrasque · Post by **Torrasque** » 08 Apr 2005, 21:19

I could be good that the game don't close when the creator quit or are disconected like in Warcraft 3. (I know it's a evil game :))

AF · Post by AF » 11 Apr 2005, 14:24

On the contrary IP games are in their nature p2p with regards tot he server system exept one peer acts as a supernode aka the host of the game. Of course with there being only 1 supernode you have essentially created a centralised system.

Jouninkomiko obviously hasnt read as extensively on p2p systems as I have and I say that where there is network traffic there is the ability to create a p2p system. Nothing more complex than supernodes hosting games and providing links to other supernodes hosting other games and some sort of chat network overlayed on the system. It would require a lot of change in the multiplayer client.

Liam · Post by **Liam** » 12 Apr 2005, 00:01

at what point have the SYs said they'll be hosting a server? the early spring versions have their own servers. (at least the one i have) i highly doubt there's going to be ONE server for spring, probably just the option for people to run their own servers. it seems like most of the people who give suggestions here have literally no idea what they're talking about. if you don't know. sit down.

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 12 Apr 2005, 04:10

Both Microsoft and Sun have created pure-p2p protocols. MS rolled it out as an optional feature in SP2. Sun's JXTA ("Juxta" - short for Juxtaposition) has a chat/p2p fileshare system and other things implemented in it. Its not just java - there's C++ versions too. These are intended to be easy-to-use drop ins.

The point is that, if you don't have your own IP address (you're behind NAT, like most users) you can have a "group manager" negotiate connections for you, acting as your representative until you establish your connections yourself. The idea is that your NAT or some other simple netpliance would run a manager for you.

The other thing is that you "advertise" all your services by broadcast. This means that server browsers are a built-in functionality. Still, spreading advertisement is slow and intensive, so its only really good for long-term dedicated constant server info. So that way there's no masterserver - you just query your neighbors for any advertisements they have.

Personally, I've been itching to code something in JXTA - like a wrapper for Cube or something... but given the incredibly large amount of information needed for an RTS, I doubt that such a solution would be ideal. Plus, Sun has a famous track record for sacrificing speed/efficiency in favour of reliability, and as such making their actual products useless for performance-oriented software (eg. games).

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 12 Apr 2005, 05:20

Alantai Firestar wrote:On the contrary IP games are in their nature p2p with regards tot he server system exept one peer acts as a supernode aka the host of the game. Of course with there being only 1 supernode you have essentially created a centralised system.

Jouninkomiko obviously hasnt read as extensively on p2p systems as I have and I say that where there is network traffic there is the ability to create a p2p system. Nothing more complex than supernodes hosting games and providing links to other supernodes hosting other games and some sort of chat network overlayed on the system. It would require a lot of change in the multiplayer client.

1) Please ditch the superiority complex.

2) If you're really that knowledgable please help the SYs.

3) I applaud you on your reduced spam levels :)

jouninkomiko · Post by **jouninkomiko** » 12 Apr 2005, 05:44

alantai. you want p2p. for a chat and battle room lobby. because you dont want a centralized server. i want you to answer this. how do you know where supernodes are? cause a central server tells you. p2p takes load off a main server, not replaces it. if you read alot about something, at least sound intelligible about it.

[K.B.] Napalm Cobra · Post by **[K.B.] Napalm Cobra** » 12 Apr 2005, 08:35

I heard something about a trackerless bt, but apparently it is all kazaa esque. As long as you people aren't going to flicker on and off wllie nillie I don't really mind.

jouninkomiko · Post by **jouninkomiko** » 12 Apr 2005, 08:39

its called exeem. it still needs a central hub, though

AF · Post by AF » 12 Apr 2005, 10:16

Well for one I dont have a superiority complex, And I know what you mean, I have long had an interest in p2p decentralised and hybrid networks. So yes maybe a tracker would be useful but for one I merely suggested the system, I never said I wanted the system. You lot should learn to distinguish between suggestions and requests. Besides I'd rather code a p2p system as an alternative to the centralised model rather than give jouninkomiko a huge workload.

And yah the SY's would be running a central server to host the lobby, but its the lobby and the client I was referring p2p to, Spring itself would functiona s it functions now.

jouninkomiko · Post by **jouninkomiko** » 12 Apr 2005, 15:53

alantai, im just telling you that not only is p2p completely infeasible for the miniscule data transfer for chat functionality, but that you can't expect to alleviate the need for a central server, or at least an IP list to "reliable supernodes", which ends up being just the same thing. You need a central server for the lobby to work (any lobby, in fact) and making it p2p is not going to change that.

Furthermore, I do not have a superiority complex either. Play nice, ok?

Spring RTS Engine

Future multi suggestion

Future multi suggestion

Well, there are pure P2P protocols