Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
glhf

What kind of multiplayer server is best? Official or user?

This topic is 2350 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

In a multiplayer game where players find each other though a client where they can open lobbies..
What are advantages and disadvantages of..

1. When they start up a match.. the server is hosted by the game server.
2. The player who started the lobby is the host.

And about number 2... is there a way to make it so if the lobby host drops connection the game continues?
Otherwise I guess it's obiously number 1 is bigtime winner.

I'm just wondering because I want cheap hosting but also I don't want junk game that everyone complains about networking problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Networking is hard, because it combines the hard problem of distributed computing with the hard problem of providing a seamless experience in the face of latency and loss.

You have to put a price tag on how important it is to you that N players feel that the game does not have networking problems. If you feel that, say, per 50 active players, it's worth paying $100/month, then getting some central host in a data center somewhere is a pretty obvious choice.

If you need to support player-hosted servers, and don't want a session to die when hosts quit, you have to support host migration. You can do this by pre-electing an order of hosts among the players playing the game, and when the current host quits, each player tries the next host in the list. If that doesn't work, go to the host after that, etc. Once you re-establish connection, sync up to the game state that the new host has, and continue the game. This probably will take a few seconds -- it certainly does when a game of Modern Warfare does host migration!

If you really can't stand the delay of host migration, then you can try to do peer-to-peer messaging in a fully connected topology (everyone sends to everyone else,) although that opens you up more for cheating, and uses more bandwidth. You can also pre-elect the "second server," and send messages and listen to messages from both, and whichever server gives you the packet first for a particular timestep, wins. That would use twice the bandwidth of the regular hosted game, but would probably use less bandwidth than peer-to-peer for large player counts (say, 8 or more per game.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks x10000 times :D

What do you think about photon?
http://cloud.exitgames.com/

Here you can see what they give: http://cloud.exitgames.com/Pricing
I'm not sure what they mean by "messages per room"?
I think I understand messages but not the "per room" part?

Do you think this would be a good choice for networking and hosting?
It's very simple networking at least which I like and has a lot of support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I imagine their "room" is what you'd call a "level" -- some space where all players can see each other.
Is it a good solution? I have no idea, as I haven't used it, nor do I know anyone who uses it. Seems cheap enough to try, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!