Now I’ve been singing the praises of Brink for well over a year now, since I first saw the SMART videos on xbox live market place.
However I still have my worries regarding the netcode and possible lag in Brink, even more so since the we will have a patch as soon as we boot up on Friday. Games like CoD and Halo still suffer from what I call “big team lag” game modes. How does the rest of the console community feel about this?
the chances are that lag will occur in some games as the amount of lag depends on the dl and ul speed of the host.
most peoples net should cope but you will get lag in some games.
most games company’s put in some kind of bandwidth detection and host the game with the player on the highest band width.
all in all i wouldn’t worry about it im sure the have optimized the crap out of the networking since the whole big idea is merging online play.
I realise some lag is possible and probable in some games, I’ve been on xbox live for over 7yrs Mr stupid answer. However, as I mentioned, most games with this many players suffer from unplayable lag. Without a public beta, how does anyone know? I suppose the correct question would be, what have SD said on the subject, if anything.
i d’like to see dedicated servers for this game, but i think it’ll be very playable the majority of time if they implemented a good match making system that doesn’t connect you to guys on the other side of the globe.
Dedicated servers would be brilliant but that’s not likely to happen on the console versions. If it doesn’t have some form of local matchmaking then its dead in the water imo. Playing against guys on a US host is a non starter in any game if you live in the UK.
Do any current games employ active host migration?
By which I mean periodically searching for the best host and seamlessly transferring control without any stoppage to play
Alternatively has anybody ever used a distributed host?
This could be split however works best
e.g. Host 1 for position and environment, host 2 for hitscan and anti-lag
e.g. Host 1 for players 1-4, host 2 for players 5-8
It has also just occurred to be that a dual host situation could also be used in a replicate then sync type mechanic
Players can then distribute there connections between the hosts and if one goes down switching to the other would be very fast
Depends on your internet connection.
When I played CoDBO I very rarely had any sort of connection issue and lag was almost non-existant, yet people complain it about constantly.
Its what you make of it.
Having more than one host would be great IF possible. The odd thing is one of the best games for lag free big matches, 16 players was Perfect Dark Zero which was out years ago.
[QUOTE=Wraith547;290116]Depends on your internet connection.
When I played CoDBO I very rarely had any sort of connection issue and lag was almost non-existant, yet people complain it about constantly.
Its what you make of it.[/QUOTE]
That usually means your getting host more often than not, I’ve had host on my 2mg ul connection and been almost invincible. Great fun for me but no one else. I’ve also a friend who has cable, he would constantly be picked as host because of his ul yet was the laggiest (is that actually a word, lol) person I know. Skipped across the screen like mad and so did everyone else.
Hmmm all my buddies and I must be lucky. This was on 360 if it makes a difference.
I am pretty sure as long as the matchmaking service is good and you arn’t getting put into matches being hosted across the country or across the pond it should be fine.
I suppose we will find out on Tuesday.
P2P has all kinds of issues (host advantage, easier for cheaters, crappy hosts, etc).
who are you telling this? i live in freaking switzerland!lol
hopefully i get connected to you UK guys most of the time. just had a match of crysis 2 where the host was from singapore and the majority of other players were from europe…you can imagine how it turned out!:rolleyes:
if Section 8: Prejudice can have servers and it’s a XBLA indie game can’t see why we can’t have it for brink
Well, this is certainly unexpected. No Xbox Live Arcade game to date has been afforded a dedicated server option. That is, until now. TimeGate Studios has announced that its recently released, multiplayer-centric title, Section 8: Prejudice, now allows Xbox Live players to access and play on PC-hosted servers through GameServers
splash damage pretty please?
I don’t get why people are making such a big deal out of this. I’ve played MAG on PS3, which had dedicated servers (256 people total on one map, dedicated servers were a must) and there were times that it lagged. Not often, but there were times. I played MW2, and Blops, both are P2P, and rarely I get the laggy unplayable game. Haven’t really dealt with hackers either (I stopped MW2 before that whole fiasco). Maybe 1 game a night on blops is laggy, MAYBE. And I rarely hear people complain about it. I don’t see why people get so upset about this, unless you’re the person with the bad connection?
Personally i feel like console should have dedicated servers since they personally have a higher chance of receiving laggy host. Especially with wifi built in in most consoles there are usually the guy with the horrible wifi connection that makes bullets lag. Most PC users(including myself) are most liekly connect to ethernet with some high speed internet so its not a problem unless the P2P is horribly implemented looks at PC MW2. Plus the price for PC is cheaper and you get more features…so it feels like console versions are get bit ripped off but either way its seems like a great game and hopefully the beta tests they had make the first days pretty smooth for everybody…
You’re not mentioning from personal experience. I see a lot of people theorizing but few people actually complaining about Blops or MW2 or other online P2P games and lagging. Don’t they use systems that choose the host with the fastest speed before each game? I’m pretty sure they do, it just makes common sense. If the person complaining is using a 256k DSL line well, that’s their problem. I just don’t think it’s a big deal.
PC uses dedicated servers because PCs vary so wildly from one home to another. Some computers can barely run the game. Let alone be able to host a game. Some players are downloading bittorrents while playing. Others are using voice chat features outside of the game. That doesn’t happen on consoles. It’s a much more closed environment, where the full bandwidth that it’s receiving can be dedicated to the game, so P2P is much more viable with little trouble.
If it was seriously that big of deal, don’t you think the largest grossing game (Blops) would choose to use dedicated servers? If any company could afford it, it would be them. But they didn’t, and they don’t have to, to make their tons of money. If it was a game-breaking deal, they wouldn’t have made the profits they did on Xbox and PS3.
I’ve said it once, I’ll say it a hundred times. It’s not that big of deal to use P2P on consoles. Unless your internet sucks, or you’ve hacked your console and it has messed it up somehow.
[QUOTE=RadBrad31;290859]You’re not mentioning from personal experience. I see a lot of people theorizing but few people actually complaining about Blops or MW2 or other online P2P games and lagging. Don’t they use systems that choose the host with the fastest speed before each game? I’m pretty sure they do, it just makes common sense. If the person complaining is using a 256k DSL line well, that’s their problem. I just don’t think it’s a big deal.
PC uses dedicated servers because PCs vary so wildly from one home to another. Some computers can barely run the game. Let alone be able to host a game. Some players are downloading bittorrents while playing. Others are using voice chat features outside of the game. That doesn’t happen on consoles. It’s a much more closed environment, where the full bandwidth that it’s receiving can be dedicated to the game, so P2P is much more viable with little trouble.
If it was seriously that big of deal, don’t you think the largest grossing game (Blops) would choose to use dedicated servers? If any company could afford it, it would be them. But they didn’t, and they don’t have to, to make their tons of money. If it was a game-breaking deal, they wouldn’t have made the profits they did on Xbox and PS3.
I’ve said it once, I’ll say it a hundred times. It’s not that big of deal to use P2P on consoles. Unless your internet sucks, or you’ve hacked your console and it has messed it up somehow.[/QUOTE]
Well thats true, lol i guess i forgot how was it like PC:o. But for personal experience on console you due have a point with connection speed. I remember i had to do some serious cuts in major things especially my PC which led me to the PS3 which i love and some crappy budget Verizon internet. I figured since PS3’s online is free and most first party games on PS3 have dedicated servers i thought i’ll be ok. Then came the sequel to a game i held close to my heart Uncharted:D. When i played online it was horrible with serious lag and glitchly moments. Heck there was one time a cinema match i wanted to watch back had the most glitch fest things going on my PS3 froze:confused:.
The reason P2P servers which shocked me especially for being a 1st party title from Sony, but most of the lagging was primary my fault due to my internet. After upgrading my Verizon internet to more gaming standards most of the issues went away. Some issues where still there like i would run into a lagger which wasn’t bad since eventually you get automatically get kicked for having bad connection(in Uncharted if it disrupts a games flow). But the worst issue was lagswitchers:mad: which ruin the experience until the developers noticed it and handle the issue a bit. My prime issue which you stated before is people internet connection. I hope they add a similar feature from Uncharted to Brink where it auto kicks for having connection that lags the game too much.
While i should have been more clearly about my past statement, it still my one of my main reasons i prefer dedicated servers. Seeing some developers like Kaos and DICE integrating dedicated servers i thought SD would do the same, i guess i miss dedicated servers from my PC days :(. And its one of the reasons why i choose PS3 since it was the closest offering PC like gameplay. Which put me off of the 360 since paying for online i would expect dedicated servers on 1st party titles but i haven’t seen any until some recent titles. Anyway i’m just primarily worried about internet connection for some users but i guess when i hear dedicated servers i feel more assured that the online experience will be better.
it will depend on your connection and the upload speed of the host, just like it does in EVERY P2P game
Hm. When I played Uncharted 2 I didn’t notice any lag on my part, but there were some other players that did lagswitch. I think you’re going to have that no matter what platform you choose to play on, people abusing and cheating to try to win.
I’ve always had a cable connection, hardwired off my router to my PS3. I work for the cable company, so you gotta believe I have a solid connection ;). I’m sure dedicated servers would be nice, but I’ll accept P2P without complaining because I’m happy with the online MP experience I’ve had so far.
As far as the PSN being free and possibly being subpar to say, MS Live, I don’t think you’ll have to worry about that when it comes back up. People are already saying that PSN will be the best, most secure service possible now. It’s been estimated that with revenue lost, longstanding negative effects, and current costs of restructuring, that this is going to cost Sony 24 billion dollars, roughly. They will never want this to happen again, so you better believe they’re going to invest considerable amount of capital into making their service amazing from here on out.