most likely Never. network engine is the way it is and would need a complete overhaul there fore to much work.

FAIL! like rly BIG FAIL! like you have no clie what you are talking about FAIL!

In Wc3 they is evade, so you "don't" know if it will hitthe server will tell you. In Warcraft there is something that is EXACTLY the same a s Rock's Hammerslam. In DotA ther eis a hero called "Nevermore" the Ultimate is a skill that does AoE arround the hero. the farer away you are the less dmg you get. means he is casting it and you move away you get less dmg the more you move away just like hammerslam. Also in DotA there is a Hero called Pristress of the Moon she can shoot a arrow that moves in a straith line and you can move out of it's way too.

Shooters such as Counterstrike CoD and much more are played (guess what) in "real time" (as you call it @_@) too and they need a very very high accuraty too because you wouldn't like to shot at somebody and don't hit him because he is actually somewhere els.

Also you are talking absolut bullshit about the amount of bandwidth withc is needed. Because if the bandwith need is SO much higher if you do it in "real time" as you call it (@_@) players who are able to join a game in wc3 and play with 9 other players but are not able to host because of low upload speed are not able to play demigod at ALL.

Peer 2 Peer is a good solution if we would life in a perfect world, but we don't.

Unfortently Stardock is to..hmm stupid? To know that so they released it with Peer 2 peer witch is causing extrem problems. So they are going to set up proxy server witch is kinda like a hybred solution. i will qoute out of a other forum

"

Here's some ASCII art explaining it. A,B,C are players, P = proxy server.

So it's still p2p, just with some proxy servers bridging the connection for some players.

"

THX @ liq3 FROM THE GAMERREPLAYS forum.

this solution nullifys every "real" advantage you would get from using peer 2 peer, but at least it will work.

In principle, I am all in agreement with attempting some new piece of technology such as "P2P".   After all, if we didn't explore new options, nothing would ever progress.   I haven't heard any compelling technical reasons why P2P was chosen ... but ... more importantly in my mind, I haven't heard why it isn't working like we would hope.

Maybe, but stardock does already have a server farm that is spread out globally, so it might not have been a huge cost for them. It sounds like they just thought p2p would be more reliable than it was... I wasn't in the beta, but you think that it should have been realized at that point. If it was a situation where most of the people in beta were technologically proficient enough to set up their routers correctly, then they should have found a better spread of users.

I also don't understand why this NAT bs is so damn crappy. It's not like it's the first system to use p2p, so why doesn't it work when the other ones do?

@ Sythion,

in answer to...

The issue is.  In other games using P2P netcode the user HAD to forward all game-traffic through any routers (NAT-devices) in the way or he/she couldn't play.

Stardock's NAT-T type netcode was supposed to "facilitate" (ie. allow for people to not bother forwarding ports at all) the connection process.

the Monk

Actually it is necessary since clinet/server you have to send your move order to the server the server has to verify it and then send it back again causing more lag.

I just find it funny that I have to use Hamachi in order to run a smooth multi player game.  I wish I had pirated the game before I bought it.

Why does it keep doing that?

Even these forums are broken..

tbh guys THERE ARE examples of "cheap" online services for game

like civ 4, there was no central server at all, and when the multiplayer code was good the games were smooth and fast

it is just WRONG that a game with so few users NEED a central server

if stardock wants to change and put some server i have nothing against it but im sure that a good and faster code can allow everything we need from multiplayer

the problem is not in the principle of p2p, the problem is (i think) in a p2p not really optimal

i usually play with a friend and we have the same provider, we ping each other like 30 40 and the provider is really fast between us, but still just starting a game between us require 1 min sometimes

lets just hope stardock is working to improve things

Server to client has the lynchpin of the server. If the host has a crappy computer/connection everyone feels it. However if they don't there is no issue. If one of the people in the game has a crappy computer/connection it's not a major issue unless it's so horrific they disconnect. At which point people rejoice. You're better off without them.

In a peer to peer setting if 1 persons computer or connection sucks everyone feels it every second of the game. They will not drop like a traditional server to client game. They will sit there and play, which makes everyone miserable and people leave the game.

So, say you get a 5v5 going on a server to client. Persons internet sucks, they get dropped, its 4v5 not that big of a deal.

If you have a 5v5 on a p2p network. Persons internet sucks, everyone pays the price for that 1 person. 9 people get to eat shit or leave. When a game can take an hour to get going people get a bad taste in their mouth in a hurry.