Question about Peerhosting on Consoles

(Jess Alon) #1

This is kind of a developer question. But anyone who has knowledge on the subject should chime in.

My question simply is what keeps a game running on peerhosting from experiencing major lag? I’ve experienced positive and negative in different multiplayer games on xbox 360. One common problem seems to be that the person hosting the match has the biggest advantage. That player seems super human compared to everyone else when others experience poor connection. I don’t know what this is like on PC hosting but I don’t feel like having the great console/PC debate all over again.

I just want to ask what is done by developers to ensure that the connection side of things goes smoothly. On BFBC2 it’s dedicated servers… and that’s an excellent experience that’s low on lag/disconnects/and other weird issues. I won’t play CoD because the Peer hosted games are plagued with issues that make the game unenjoyable for me. BUT recently I won a free copy of Crysis 2. (I denounced this game after playing the demo but when I got my copy of the full game I play the campaign and loved it and then tried the multiplayer again. It was much more balanced the second time around.) And I was actually pleased with the peer support in matches. It went very well and only sometimes were there any issues.

Anyway… to the developers on the technical side who are developing for 360 and ps3. How are you addressing peer hosting. And how does this work? What makes some games run better then others in regards to the peer to peer format?

(Herandar) #2

I’m no expert, but there is good and bad netcoding, and I’ve been told that the last two COD games have bad netcode, especially BlOps. Especially on PS3.

(Labyrinth666) #3

[QUOTE=Jess Alon;272426]This is kind of a developer question. But anyone who has knowledge on the subject should chime in.

My question simply is what keeps a game running on peerhosting from experiencing major lag? I’ve experienced positive and negative in different multiplayer games on xbox 360. One common problem seems to be that the person hosting the match has the biggest advantage. That player seems super human compared to everyone else when others experience poor connection. I don’t know what this is like on PC hosting but I don’t feel like having the great console/PC debate all over again.

I just want to ask what is done by developers to ensure that the connection side of things goes smoothly. On BFBC2 it’s dedicated servers… and that’s an excellent experience that’s low on lag/disconnects/and other weird issues. I won’t play CoD because the Peer hosted games are plagued with issues that make the game unenjoyable for me. BUT recently I won a free copy of Crysis 2. (I denounced this game after playing the demo but when I got my copy of the full game I play the campaign and loved it and then tried the multiplayer again. It was much more balanced the second time around.) And I was actually pleased with the peer support in matches. It went very well and only sometimes were there any issues.

Anyway… to the developers on the technical side who are developing for 360 and ps3. How are you addressing peer hosting. And how does this work? What makes some games run better then others in regards to the peer to peer format?[/QUOTE]

I think Crysis 2 has dedicated servers. I also hate peer hosted matches; if I’m not lagging, my friends are and vice versa.

(Jess Alon) #4

Oh you play Crysis MP as well? It shows you who’s hosting the match on the player list whenever you pull it up.

(Labyrinth666) #5

I’ve been told it does, but maybe that was just the demo.:penguin:

(EcafNoGav) #6

I don’t remember MW having bad netcode, haven’t played W@W enough to say either way, but MW2 had excellent net code. Unless you were playing someone on a wireless connection or too far away lag wasn’t discernible. BO was the complete opposite. It was just awful all around and by far the worst game online. I read that they artificially hindered host and anyone with a good connection to even the playing field with poor connections but it just made the game unplayable.

Crysis 2 demo depended purely on host. Sometimes you’d get a really good host where most people were 3 bars and even a couple were four and it was almost lag free. More often than not though, you’d get a crappy host, everyone had 1 bar and for every bullet that did register 10 didn’t. Though it still wasn’t as bad as Black Ops. It was bad enough that I cancelled my preorder so I don’t know how the retail is.

Two games with terrible P2P netcode/matchmaking in a row makes me worry about Brink.

It would be nice if they ran a constant network test between matches on who has the highest upload rate and the lowest ping and gave that person host.

(crazyfoolish) #7

[QUOTE=EcafNoGav;272598]I don’t remember MW having bad netcode, haven’t played W@W enough to say either way, but MW2 had excellent net code. Unless you were playing someone on a wireless connection or too far away lag wasn’t discernible. BO was the complete opposite. It was just awful all around and by far the worst game online. I read that they artificially hindered host and anyone with a good connection to even the playing field with poor connections but it just made the game unplayable.

Crysis 2 demo depended purely on host. Sometimes you’d get a really good host where most people were 3 bars and even a couple were four and it was almost lag free. More often than not though, you’d get a crappy host, everyone had 1 bar and for every bullet that did register 10 didn’t. Though it still wasn’t as bad as Black Ops. It was bad enough that I cancelled my preorder so I don’t know how the retail is.

Two games with terrible P2P netcode/matchmaking in a row makes me worry about Brink.

It would be nice if they ran a constant network test between matches on who has the highest upload rate and the lowest ping and gave that person host.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you on the constant ping test. Honestly though i have (ashamedly) spent a fair amount of time playing black ops and really haven’t had many issues with lag. I always get at least a three bar connection and usually a four bar. I think that this is because of the large playerbase (matchmaking can put put people from the same locale with a good ping together). I do lag when i play the lowly populated playlists. It may be different on other platforms. I have an xbox.

(Jess Alon) #8

I’m wireless but my router is redonkulous. And I have the xbox slim with the built in wireless. I’m usually running four bars when I’m in.

(Herandar) #9

I mis-stated rather bad here. What I had heard is that the last two Treyarch COD games have had serious problems on PS3. Some people cannot play either game on the PS3. I had seen a video about this and looked for it yesterday, but I couldn’t find it.

I don’t think the code is great on the other platforms either.

(beute) #10

[QUOTE=Jess Alon;272426] One common problem seems to be that the person hosting the match has the biggest advantage. That player seems super human compared to everyone else when others experience poor connection. I don’t know what this is like on PC hosting but I don’t feel like having the great console/PC debate all over again.

[/QUOTE]

this is pretty normal for p2p connection.

someone has to be the host as there is no dedicated server.
the host has no traffic, he hosts the game, his data doesnt need to go through the internet.
he will always have a ping of zero. no latency at all, it’s like playing singleplayer.

Every other players connection depends on how far away the host lives, the hosts internet connection and the other traffic he is dealing with.( if the host decides to download pr0n while playing the game, you will suffer…)

this is a problem for games with many players… it’s not a problem for games like starcraft or quake where most of the games are played in 1v1 and traffic isnt that high.

dedicated servers run the game instead of a host, it’s a fixed location, so as long as you remain on the same server, you latency shouldnt increase/decrease at all.
the server isnt a player, and thus no one gets the host advantage.
the server also does not download pr0n or does other stupid things like seeding 20 different torrents…
and you, as the player, can choose the server you wanna join.
you’re not forced to play a game on a laggy server.
just find one with a nice latency and you’re ready to go.

Dedicated servers are not too common on consoles as they rely on the community.
the community pays for them, the servers are controlled via PC.
on top of that xbox live and PSN dont like to support dedicated servers.
developers have a hard time to implement them in console games.

most dedicated servers on the consoles are paid/hosted by the publisher/dev.
while there are official servers from publishers on PC, most of the dedicated servers are paid by the community.

(Herandar) #11

Not on console games with dedicated servers.

(Jess Alon) #12

Yeah at that point it’s up to the admins responsible for hosting not you.

And also I know that I’ll experience no latency if I’m host. People get so excited when they are host because they think their K/D is about to go WAY up or something in some games. I was curious because I have a lot of IT experience how exactly the hosting code is tested if it’s done in house and there’s no public beta. The guys at SD aren’t going to deal with this problem. But we will.

(LyndonL) #13

On PC it’s fine so long as you’re not trying to connect to a server across the other side of the country… :tongue:

(TiN TiN) #14

It’s all about the net coding. As long as there isn’t noticeable lag, no dropping people, or being unable to connect type of issues then I’ll be fine. Oh and host doesn’t have too great of an advantage.

That’s also why they had a closed beta. I’m sure they have done some tests with online play and their peer hosting along with other things.

(Wraith) #15

I still wish consoles would have dedicated servers. There is always Brink 2 (hopefully).

(Jess Alon) #16

Brink 2 probably won’t just get called “Brink 2” It’ll probably get called Brink: (subtitle) because that’s classy and Brink 2 sounds weird.

(jRAD) #17

BrIInk, obviously!

(Wieke) #18

Obviously the sequel to Brink would be All Out Civil War. :wink:

(Nail) #19

I like BrIInk myself