• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Gaffer

Incoming hilarity: abaraba is back, and this time he's fixated on P2P networking!

82 posts in this topic

You folks may remember abaraba from his "fix your timestep" internet crusade: http://gafferongames.com/2008/10/20/fix-your-timestep-crazy-internet-stalker/ Now he's back to make sure that everybody switches from client/server to P2P networking!
Quote:
i wish to argue how peer-to-peer model is faster, much faster, than currently popular server-client model… and in fact, it has so many advantages over S/C that it is mindbogglingly unexplainable why in the world no online multiplayer game use it. why, why, why? but, if there are any games to use it after all, then please let me know about them. ok, here it goes...
his rationale for all this?
Quote:
P2P updates are asynchronous, there is no FAST/SLOW here, no waiting – you only have FURTHER and CLOSER, and further is not SLOWER it is only more behind in the past, but the rate of update is NON INTERRUPTED, has CONSTANT streaming flow. theoretically working on FULL 60Hz and more, where frequency only depends on upload bandwidth, size of packets and number of peers. there is no lag, no glitches, no slowdowns, no waiting on server… only time dilation, depending only on DISTANCE.
(boggle?!) read on for pure hilarity: http://gafferongames.com/game-physics/networked-physics/#comment-11576 cheers all
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah the 2 deleted threads should tell you something. Didn't realize it was the same person. :P
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just read through that whole thread - the thing you guys need to understand here, and this is essential to really understand what that abaraba guy is all about - he's not a troll, he actually believes what he's saying.

Yep, he's actually that crazy.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, that was the impression I got as well. Stil, I wasted so much time replying to that thread before I realised that he actually had no interest in learning anything and clearly completely ignored parts of responses (and in some cases, entire responses) which didn't fit what he was trying say...

Oh well, live and learn :-)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My guess is that in addition to being stir-crazy, the guy has english as a second language - and doesn't really understand it too well. In fact, I highly suspect that he takes all replies to his posts and feeds them through google translate, replies in his native language, then google translates it back. Seriously, this would explain a hell of a lot :)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I made a post with math and took the time to refute his numbers. I have too much free-time. Hopefully I didn't make a mistake myself though.

It would be saner if he had any networking experience.

Oh yeah and how fast is a 56k modem? I mean is it really only 56 kilobits/sec max? I haven't seen one in years so I forgot what speed they ran at.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd *love* to see this guy sweating it out actually trying to ship a console game. Especially considering the 360 TCR that you must function at 64kbit/sec up and down ... try doing that with P2P @ 32 players. I'm waaay too lazy to do the math right now (it's 12:35AM on a sunday night), but the packet header overhead would probably eat up the entire 64kbits, especially if he goes with the 60Hz packet send rate!!! :)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's like talking to a wall. That's just too scary, he may actually suffer from a condition.

P2P is a pain in the ass. The extra bandwidth requirement and update rate are trivial problems when compared to host migration, and achieving consistency (with exotic NAT router settings and all), packet forwarding, ect...

15peers @ 60hz, you'd be way over the requirements of 64bk/s, your updates would have to be 9 bytes in size, which is less than the actual packet header size. Especially on consoles where you have extra security overheads.

Maybe he is the long lost brother of the guys who found a way to compress everything into one byte (cant find the thread here but it was pretty funny).
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I mean is it really only 56 kilobits/sec max?"

Yes, but it includes protocol bits -- typically 8 bits take 9 to 10 bits to transmit (with sync and parity). So that's really only about 5600cps.

Ohhh my word the interwebnets were slow when stuffed down those sorts of connections.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im pretty sure this is the same guy: abgupta4

similar style :P

http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=207043

he seems to have have deleted most of his old OP's though
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
how fast is a 56k modem? I mean is it really only 56 kilobits/sec max?


I recall they were about 53 kbps down and 36 kbps up. You could never crank them all the way to 56 kbps, because of signal processing issues. Probably related to quantization noise -- US telecom voice is quantized to 7 bits per sample, with 1/2 bit of quantization noise that lands smack at 53 kbit bandwidth, so that would match up.

Quote:
Unskilled and unaware of it


It's actually linked from Answer 0 in the Forum FAQ :-)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Gaffer
Read on for the new adventures of abaraba - the timestep crusader! :)

http://gafferongames.com/2009/09/04/the-return-of-the-timestep-crusader


I'm sorry, but have you not in fact admitted server upload bandwidth is O(n^2) while peer upload/download bandwidth is O(n)? Do you realize how this means the same client bandwidth can allow for twice the number of players with P2P than with client-server?

Second, have you not in fact admitted the mistake in your time-stepping article where you incorrectly integrate free fall physics equation which is supposed to give exact results with uniform acceleration such as gravity? Fianally, if you are wrong about the main two points, what do you still find hilarious and who are we supposed to be laughing at?



Quote:
Original post by hplus0603
Quote:
Unskilled and unaware of it


It's actually linked from Answer 0 in the Forum FAQ :-)


Does the fact that Age of Empires implements P2P on 28.8 modem with perfect synchronization, determinism and fluid animation not make all the objections against P2P invalid, especially if this is intended for console systems and games without dedicated server where the security risks are just the same as with client hosting the game?

Is it not the integrated bandwidth of O(n^2) in P2P still better than having just one client(server) use O(n^2) upload bandwidth? Does that not actually make P2P about two times more practical given the same bandwidth constraints?

Finally, having only two-player game, do you think it would be better if one player hosted the game for both, or would P2P type of direct link turn out as a better solution in this case?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew F Marcus (if that is your real name) maybe you should think about why you were banned all those other times before you sign up with yet another account and start spouting the same stuff all over again...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ugh...

Hey, about we all go read about Schwarzschild Proton, the solution to Grand unification theory that completely changes the understanding of universe as we know it. It even has lots of formulas and numbers.

Doesn't sound this better than all of this boring networking stuff?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Codeka
Andrew F Marcus (if that is your real name) maybe you should think about why you were banned all those other times before you sign up with yet another account and start spouting the same stuff all over again...


Codeka (if that is your real name) maybe you should think about the purpose of this forum and in the spirit of making things clear, for all who come here seeking for help, at least attempt to answer the question or respond in some other meaningful and helpful manner.


Is it true that Halo 3 and GTA IV multiplayer in fact work on P2P architecture?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Andrew F Marcus
Is it true that Halo 3 and GTA IV multiplayer in fact work on P2P architecture?
No, it's not true.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Andrew F Marcus
I'm sorry, but have you not in fact admitted server upload bandwidth is O(n^2) while peer upload/download bandwidth is O(n)? Do you realize how this means the same client bandwidth can allow for twice the number of players with P2P than with client-server?

...

Is it not the integrated bandwidth of O(n^2) in P2P still better than having just one client(server) use O(n^2) upload bandwidth? Does that not actually make P2P about two times more practical given the same bandwidth constraints?

I don't see how he is wrong here in the case that all clients have equal bandwidth and that if a client had to be a server.

Quote:
Original post by Andrew F Marcus
Finally, having only two-player game, do you think it would be better if one player hosted the game for both, or would P2P type of direct link turn out as a better solution in this case?

seems to be about the same but writing p2p is harder to sync.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Jeonjr
Quote:
Original post by Andrew F Marcus
Finally, having only two-player game, do you think it would be better if one player hosted the game for both, or would P2P type of direct link turn out as a better solution in this case?

seems to be about the same but writing p2p is harder to sync.


Another thing to consider (at least in the real world) is that companies sometimes decide it's less trouble to retrofit their ANCIENT single-player codebases so that they are multiplayer capable. This is almost impossible to do if you use peer-to-peer.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
I'm sorry, but have you not in fact admitted server upload bandwidth is O(n^2) while peer upload/download bandwidth is O(n)? Do you realize how this means the same client bandwidth can allow for twice the number of players with P2P than with client-server?


If there is no per-packet overhead, that statement would not be true, because squared and times-two are different functions.
If there is per-packet overhead, that statement would not be true, because packet overhead matters.

Do you think that the people who wrote Counter-Strike: Source, or Quake III: Arena, or Unreal Tournament, are idiots? Do you think they do not carefully test a number of different approaches before they settle on what works best? Why do you think they are not using P2P topologies?

Anyway, the proof is simple: Just write a game that is P2P and works much better than current games based on Source, Unreal, Quake etc engines. There are lots of companies out there in the games engine and middleware business, and none of them end up using P2P solutions. If you can write a much better game, or simply license a much better solution, you'll make lots of money!

I'll leave you with another question: We've all heard about MAG (Massive Actiongame), right? Do you think they use client/server, or peer-to-peer, for their 256-player matches? And why?


PS: Note that I was not the mod who banned the previous poster on the P2P topic. I believe that P2P is on topic for this forum. However, I expect all participants to be polite, and I expect all participants to actually read, and actually respond to, previous posts in the thread. Anyone who just keeps saying the same thing without reading, understanding and responding to previous arguments may be warned and/or suspended.

[Edited by - hplus0603 on September 5, 2009 3:30:11 PM]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Nypyren
Another thing to consider (at least in the real world) is that companies sometimes decide it's less trouble to retrofit their ANCIENT single-player codebases so that they are multiplayer capable. This is almost impossible to do if you use peer-to-peer.


All it takes is to forward the input and for other computers to use that data instead of some AI algorithm. It's the equivalent of making two player hot-seat game or split screen multiplayer.


Quote:
Original post by Jeonjr
Quote:
Original post by Andrew F Marcus
I'm sorry, but have you not in fact admitted server upload bandwidth is O(n^2) while peer upload/download bandwidth is O(n)? Do you realize how this means the same client bandwidth can allow for twice the number of players with P2P than with client-server?

...

Is it not the integrated bandwidth of O(n^2) in P2P still better than having just one client(server) use O(n^2) upload bandwidth? Does that not actually make P2P about two times more practical given the same bandwidth constraints?

I don't see how he is wrong here in the case that all clients have equal bandwidth and that if a client had to be a server.


P2P bandwidth cost per peer is O(n)
C/S bandwidth cost per client-host is O(n^2)

For example, if upload limit for all the clients was 20units, then P2P could support up to 20 players, while S/C approach could not support more than 4 players. Other mistake was him thinking how collective bandwidth usage is more with P2P than C/S, which is obviously wrong since server sends data to all about all and that makes it very wasteful and superfluous way to communicate information, making a pig out of one of the clients, hogging more bandwidth than all the peers together.

Hope that explains.


Quote:
Original post by Jeonjr
Quote:
Original post by Andrew F Marcus
Finally, having only two-player game, do you think it would be better if one player hosted the game for both, or would P2P type of direct link turn out as a better solution in this case?

seems to be about the same but writing p2p is harder to sync.


It is easy to write P2P programs and very much easier to sync them. Ask our friend "Stickman": "The multiplayer part is P2P, I've done my best on reducing latency and bandwidth, using various packing schemes and priorities. It works nicely with 30 people online, using only 5kBps upload."

http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=509402&whichpage=1�
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by hplus0603
Quote:
I'm sorry, but have you not in fact admitted server upload bandwidth is O(n^2) while peer upload/download bandwidth is O(n)? Do you realize how this means the same client bandwidth can allow for twice the number of players with P2P than with client-server?


If there is no per-packet overhead, that statement would not be true, because squared and times-two are different functions.
If there is per-packet overhead, that statement would not be true, because packet overhead matters.


Packet overhead hardly makes any difference. Besides, it can always be argued P2P needs only to pass player input between peers. If my statement is wrong than it's because it's understatement, the difference is not "twice", but it rather grows exponentially with the number of players, in favor of P2P.


Quote:

Do you think that the people who wrote Counter-Strike: Source, or Quake III: Arena, or Unreal Tournament, are idiots? Do you think they do not carefully test a number of different approaches before they settle on what works best? Why do you think they are not using P2P topologies?


Yes, if there is no better explanation for not using P2P. Yes, they likely did not think, test, nor care to consider other approaches, most of them did not even write their engines, they copied what others were doing. Everyone is playing it safe, everyone is using one and the same code. Besides, many of them may falsely believe P2P has bandwidth issues. How do you explain it? It's not bandwidth, it's not latency, it's not security. What is it then?


Quote:

Anyway, the proof is simple: Just write a game that is P2P and works much better than current games based on Source, Unreal, Quake etc engines. There are lots of companies out there in the games engine and middleware business, and none of them end up using P2P solutions. If you can write a much better game, or simply license a much better solution, you'll make lots of money!


I wrote some even more incredible stuff, unfortunately no one cares and I am even giving it all away for free. Industry is very inert now days, there is so much money involved that it acts as an obstacle to inventiveness and progress, making all the games play and look alike.

Do you want to play Stickman? "30 people online, using only 5kBps upload"
http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=509402&whichpage=1


Quote:

I'll leave you with another question: We've all heard about MAG (Massive Actiongame), right? Do you think they use client/server, or peer-to-peer, for their 256-player matches? And why?


I don't know. They are being silly?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0