So when is stardock going to switch to server based multiplayer?

WC3. You fire shot X at unit Y. You don't need any more information because you have the same random seed as the server, and you KNOW it will hit.

Demigod. You target a unit with Rook's Hammerslam. Suddenly, that unit might move out the way. If you fire an arrow at someone, you can move out the way or have it blocked. (I don't think this actually happens, but the engine is set up for this to happen). The amount of information required is massively more, because it's all actually done in real time. Whereas in WC3, once the shot has been fired, it's done, dealt with, no more info needed. The relay time to go from client to server to client was simply too much, and the required bandwidth was excessive.

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

I tihnk filter by ping using the lobby host would be helpful. In the meantime stop joining games that have "aus" or "australia" in the title and you wont have to play with us

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.

Honestly, I suspect the real motive for the p2p architectue was financial. Even if it was technically optimal to run everything through centralized servers, they'd have to pay someone to have a server farm, and this cost grows with user base. I think they thought it would be easier/cheaper just to mediate the initial P2P connections. Whoops!

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.

Nolc... How can you accuse Stardock of stupidity when you lack basic grammar and spelling skills?

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?

@Nolc DeadMG is right since this is the Supreme Commander engine there is the possibility and when you move out of the way in WC3 it still hits in SupCom it doesnt so there is actual need for p2p

@ 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

Not that I am against the P2P network setup of the SupCom/FA/Demigod engine.

Oh and Nolc, your spelling is just horrible.

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.

The server client setup does not introduce more lag than the P2P setup. The P2P setup however makes cheating impossible.

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.

They would only have to pay for a few inital servers, clans would pick start paying for servers, like in EVERY other game on the internet.  Left 4 Dead is pretty similar to demigod in how games work, as in, it's not a persistant game, but starts with the players.  And L4D does servers fine.  There's no reason Demigod can't.

P2P isn't new, it's old, in fact it's ancient.  Why should it not be used?  What many people seem to not realize is that for the past year and a half or so, nearly every ISP has been trying to throttle p2p traffic.  some have even been in and out of lawsuits over the matter.  This means alot of people have issues they can do nothing about due to their ISP.  The other thing is that people are idiots.  Like 90% of ..everyone, doesn't have their router set up properly.  So when you have to form a solid connection to everyone, with these two forces at play, it makes starting a game and seeing it to the end, a difficult task.

p2p is archaic

Why does it keep doing that?

Even these forums are broken..

Don't copy/paste from Word. Its HTML editing is horrible and adds all sorts of junk tags.

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

Thanks for the response.  I'm an old-guy .... been working client/server computing since the 80s ... I guess when I said new technology like P2P it is all relative

As far as P2P goes ... can we think of any other games that have utilized P2P to keep their players in synch with each other?

Neil

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.

The units in Warcraft 3 do not evade if you move away from projectiles (arrows) or select projectile spells (storm bolt). They will pretty much chase you till the end of the map unless you blink, TP, invul pot or with the blademaster outrun it. Only AOE spells can be moved away, the rest are guaranteet hit unless it is interupted by something else. It is not like guild wars where a projectile can be dodge by moving out of the way, it doesn't work like that in WC3. Only heroes with evasion can evade.

Shadow fiends ultimate is an AOE and Priestest of the Moons arrow can also be considered an AOE like shockwave that moves in one direction and stun damage but smaller.