Original post by Gaffer
this statement is incorrect. there are many documents discussing the quake, counterstrike and unreal networking models. each of them discuss why client/server is a more attractive choice than peer-to-peer.
There is no such document and I challenge you to prove me wrong. Do you accept the challenge, mate?
And google presents (in 0.29sec no less)
how and why quake's model works:http://www.runequake.com/hoh/Quake.pdf
discussion of many of the pitfalls of P2P quake and how to help alleviate them. But notice how they skirt around the bandwidth problem by limiting the data set. The same techniques could apply to client/server.http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~fuyeda/papers/iptps2007.pdf
More discussion of P2P and the extremes you have to go to in order to make it work for clients with vastly different hardware and networks.http://prisms.cs.umass.edu/brian/pubs/stjohn.nossdav.2005.pdf
How many games have dedicated servers, 2%? Regardless of time P2P will always be able to make it more practical for average users to get together in greater numbers.
Of the games i have:
TF2, MW4, L4D, CS Source, HL2, Quake 3, UT2K4, IL2, Descent Freespace...
hmmm... looks like I didn't find a SINGLE game that has multiplayer, uses ClientServer, and doesn't provide an .exe i can run/remote host as a dedicated server. Not saying they don't exist, but that is a lot of big name games I listed, and they all provide that functionality.
RTS games are usually P2P, so they can all run without hosted servers. (except SupCom, cause they tied that to GPGNet for some stupid reason)
And again, I'm going to stress. Without a dedicated server (pirate bay, battlenet, gpgnet, steam) how many people do you expect to play a game together? It isn't a magical "P2P! GO!", people still need a place to gather to play the game. If you as a company have to provide a matchmaking server, and the gameplay model plays better(lower lag, less cheating, etc) on C/S why not setup that way to start with and save yourself the hassle of making P2P work. Read the papers above, P2P takes a lot more work just to get it to behave close to the QoS level C/S setups have.
Finally, from a developer standpoint. There are deadlines. Imagine 6 months to make this P2P or C/S game model work, with a publisher breathing down your neck, quoting your minimum specs, and quoting you support costs for features if they are to be expected to host anything (server OR just matchmaking server). Now, are you going to go P2P and risk all the problems it has? (have you read how hard it is to get BitTorrent working? Network problems abound.) Or just go with a client server, pay hosting costs, but save on Support line costs? Very few games(ie only PC, and some console live games) are willing to provide devs with support money for patches and the like. So again, something that is risky? or something that works out of the box and you don't have to risk wasting money patching as often?
IF there was some "P2P Networking Middleware!" company then things would be different, but there isn't one. On the other hand there are tonnes of dedicated server hosting sites a company can choose to rent from.
Why do you imagine peers can not predict actions ahead? It's nothing more but velocity extrapolation. Authoritative server is not necessary to make interaction fair.
Ah, but it is. Because in the face of cheaters and packet loss, not every client sees the same view of the game. You need arbatration. Either you waste bandwidth sending data so the clients can choose to agree on the world state, or you have a dedicated server that dictates the world state
Read what? There is no such document.
I expect you to give me that link you told me to read upon, so I can read it.
Learn to google. Tonnes of CS majors go onto grad school and have to publish papers on this type of crap all the time. Also, check out some of the networking middleware that is available (like eNet or RakNet). They also discuss quite in depth most of what you are talking about.
It is a bad attitude to demand resources that you aren't willing to look for. I have yet to see you provide any source documents of any academic quality to back up your claims. That is why you keep getting banned. Arguments aren't about "you are wrong I'm right", they are about "here is proof" "rebuttal proof". Scientific method and all. Everyone else is being through and rebutting points categorically down each of your posts. Why not follow in suit? I note you picked a SINGLE point on my list to rebutt/accept. Sounds antagonistic, and like you are skirting the issues instead of attempting to understand, accept, or properly attempt to educate us on how we are wrong.
If you pass only input then you likely need determinism, but if you pass all the data then you don't,
And there's the rub. What type of game are you making? an input based twich game(FPS) or a turn-based/lockstep game(RTS)[Edited by - KulSeran on September 6, 2009 6:45:11 AM]