gears of war....
-
iluvquake4
- Posts: 941
- Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:47 am
Exactly, a dedicated server software would prevent the zero ping issue and you could run it in a datacenter for very good bandwidth to all players in a given location. The server could stay up 24/7 and even contain stats or persistent options. Since the server would not be in in 'listen mode' it would run much more optimal than a P2P session where everyone's machine is dedicating most of the resources to running graphics, sound, AI, etc.
Last edited by iluvquake4 on Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
sureiluvquake4 wrote:Players could run the dedicated server software on their PCs, or rented PCs, or from game server hosts.
Live could list the dedicated servers. Players can join the servers.
You can run a dedicated server and list it, or join a P2P session (just like now).
It would be no different than how it's done for all the online PC games such as Quake 3, Enemy Territory, Quake 4, etc, etc.
:icon27:
lets network mr unclean's PC to the MS live network I'm sure it'll look after itself and the cost of writing server software etc won't add anything to the game/live price.stupid little boy
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
-
iluvquake4
- Posts: 941
- Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:47 am
It would be up to the developer to develop the server side software. MS wouldn't have to pay for it. UT and UT2k4 have dedicated server software for Windows and Linux. It would be up to Epic do this. Most likely if they do a PC port of GOW, there will be dedicated server software. If they can release that to allow Live connections, it would help the online portion of the 360 gameplay tremendously. Perhaps even a server side option -- PC/360/Both.
the developer would have to pay something for the use of the live network. don't think MS would just give up that little gem, it's like it is for a reason.iluvquake4 wrote:It would be up to the developer to develop the server side software. MS wouldn't have to pay for it. UT and UT2k4 have dedicated server software for Windows and Linux. It would be up to Epic do this.
i'm done with you.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
-
iluvquake4
- Posts: 941
- Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:47 am
Of course the developer would have to pay. However, it would streamline and make the online gameplay much more efficient. Being that GOW is a title that promotes the purchase and use of the 360, I'm sure MS would give Epic some flexibility, particulary if GOW is released as a Vista game as well. It would be a great promo -- get Vista and play GOW with your 360 friends, etc.
iluvquake4 wrote:Players could run the dedicated server software on their PCs, or rented PCs, or from game server hosts.
Live could list the dedicated servers. Players can join the servers.
You can run a dedicated server and list it, or join a P2P session (just like now).
It would be no different than how it's done for all the online PC games such as Quake 3, Enemy Territory, Quake 4, etc, etc.
:icon27:
PS2 did this with SOCOM and it sucked royally.
The proof is in the pudding, pudding.
-
iluvquake4
- Posts: 941
- Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:47 am
-
iluvquake4
- Posts: 941
- Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:47 am
TCP requires a lot more overhead due to the error correction techniques and P2P requires a lot more syncing -- it is why id Software abandoned the idea for Doom 3. UDP connections with a dedicated server are superior in that there it is uses client-side prediction and the clients do not have to constantly sync with other clients -- it is up to the players to send and receive with the server.
Most likely the problems you experience with GOW MP (aside from any gameplay issues) are due to the nature of P2P, which would be resolved with dedicated servers ran by players and clans.
Most likely the problems you experience with GOW MP (aside from any gameplay issues) are due to the nature of P2P, which would be resolved with dedicated servers ran by players and clans.
-
iluvquake4
- Posts: 941
- Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:47 am
Basic Networking
Client-Server vs. Peer-to-Peer
In a client-server network architecture, however, certain computers are designated for full-time server duty, while others (such as user workstations) are full-time clients. For example, a file server will house hard drives containing files that all network users can access from their personal workstations. After working on a file, the user can then save the changes back to the server for safekeeping and collaboration. Another example would be a server set up as a dedicated 'post office' for an entire organization, collecting everyone's email from outside sources for internal distribution and serving as the transporter for all outgoing email. In this case each user's computer would be a client of the mail server.
Both Peer-to-peer and Client-server network architectures have their advantages and disadvantages. On balance, however, a Client-server configuration is preferable to peer-to-peer, especially in a small business environment where there is an expectation of growth.
The upside of the Peer-to-peer is that it is relatively inexpensive and fairly simple to set up and manage. The flip side is that it is limited in extensibility, tends to overburden user workstations by having them play the role of server to other users, is largely unsecured, and is typically unable to provide system-wide services since the typical workstation will run a standard desktop operating system incapable of hosting any major service (e.g., a post office).
The upside of the Client-server is that it can extend to handle organizational growth, allows user workstations to function as unburdened clients, can provide sophisticated system-wide services, and is configurable for maximum security. The downside is obvious: higher initial capital investment to establish, and a greater level of technology expertise required to configure and manage, as compared to the vanilla peer-to-peer network. So, which to pick?
http://www.enterprise-technology.net/network2.htm
Client-Server vs. Peer-to-Peer
In a client-server network architecture, however, certain computers are designated for full-time server duty, while others (such as user workstations) are full-time clients. For example, a file server will house hard drives containing files that all network users can access from their personal workstations. After working on a file, the user can then save the changes back to the server for safekeeping and collaboration. Another example would be a server set up as a dedicated 'post office' for an entire organization, collecting everyone's email from outside sources for internal distribution and serving as the transporter for all outgoing email. In this case each user's computer would be a client of the mail server.
Both Peer-to-peer and Client-server network architectures have their advantages and disadvantages. On balance, however, a Client-server configuration is preferable to peer-to-peer, especially in a small business environment where there is an expectation of growth.
The upside of the Peer-to-peer is that it is relatively inexpensive and fairly simple to set up and manage. The flip side is that it is limited in extensibility, tends to overburden user workstations by having them play the role of server to other users, is largely unsecured, and is typically unable to provide system-wide services since the typical workstation will run a standard desktop operating system incapable of hosting any major service (e.g., a post office).
The upside of the Client-server is that it can extend to handle organizational growth, allows user workstations to function as unburdened clients, can provide sophisticated system-wide services, and is configurable for maximum security. The downside is obvious: higher initial capital investment to establish, and a greater level of technology expertise required to configure and manage, as compared to the vanilla peer-to-peer network. So, which to pick?
http://www.enterprise-technology.net/network2.htm
-
iluvquake4
- Posts: 941
- Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:47 am
"Topologies
Client-Server
In this mode, clients are unaware of the other clients in the session and can only send packets to the server. If a client needs to send a packet to another client, it must first send the packet to the server, which in turn must forward it. The server must be capable of handling many clients. This topology is most suited to large multiplayer games.
Peer-to-Peer
In peer-to-peer mode, all of the clients in a session are connected and aware of each other. Packet sends may be targeted directly toward other clients with no need for a central server. In this topology, one client is designated as the host for the session and handles the administrative overhead associated with maintaining the session for all peers.
DirectPlay 8 supports automatic host migration. In the event that the client designated as the host were to drop from the session, another client would be designated as the new host. The session is seamlessly maintained during this transition, guaranteeing that all transactions that are in progress at the time of the migration will be completed.
This topology is most suited to smaller multiplayer games typically reaching a maximum of 64 players at any given time. It is important to note that DirectPlay 8 does not impose any restriction on the number of connections used in any topology. It is up to the game developers to monitor resource usage and determine the performance level appropriate for their particular game."
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/librar ... view_topol
Client-Server
In this mode, clients are unaware of the other clients in the session and can only send packets to the server. If a client needs to send a packet to another client, it must first send the packet to the server, which in turn must forward it. The server must be capable of handling many clients. This topology is most suited to large multiplayer games.
Peer-to-Peer
In peer-to-peer mode, all of the clients in a session are connected and aware of each other. Packet sends may be targeted directly toward other clients with no need for a central server. In this topology, one client is designated as the host for the session and handles the administrative overhead associated with maintaining the session for all peers.
DirectPlay 8 supports automatic host migration. In the event that the client designated as the host were to drop from the session, another client would be designated as the new host. The session is seamlessly maintained during this transition, guaranteeing that all transactions that are in progress at the time of the migration will be completed.
This topology is most suited to smaller multiplayer games typically reaching a maximum of 64 players at any given time. It is important to note that DirectPlay 8 does not impose any restriction on the number of connections used in any topology. It is up to the game developers to monitor resource usage and determine the performance level appropriate for their particular game."
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/librar ... view_topol
-
iluvquake4
- Posts: 941
- Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:47 am
-
AmIdYfReAk
- Posts: 6926
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2000 8:00 am