[gameprogrammer] Re: starcraf game

>From: "Jason Clark" <jclark@xxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: gameprogrammer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: <gameprogrammer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [gameprogrammer] Re: starcraf game
>Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:18:08 -0600
>
>Not necessarily off topic, I've been watching this thread to get a
>general idea of how some other multiplayer games are handled, and some
>ideas to play with.
>The dilemma of whether to host a central server, allow user hosted
>servers, or spread the engine to the individual players is one that
>interests me. On the one hand, giving the customer the ability to set up
>their own servers helps reduce overhead, but opens the doors to
>cheaters.  Of course if you take for granted the fact that their will
>always be some players that will cheat, you might be able to take that
>into account so that players who want to can, and those that don't can
>be warned if the server they are logging into has modification.
>I'm a huge believer in trying to find the balance between giving a fun
>experience to the customer, while allowing them to use your game to do
>what will be most fun for them.
>I, for example, love playing video games, but am so terrible that
>without cheats I will often not be able to complete a game and get the
>full experience, instead put it back in a box and not get anymore like
>it. On the other hand, playing on line with someone that cheats can be
>more than frustrating, a particular experience I had getting beat by a
>12 year old in a more grotesque than usual manner comes to mind.
>
>Thanks,
>Jason.
>
Hmm insteresting point, I've thought of the same thing, the most pausible 
option seems to have a server that joins players and puts them into P2P 
games, kind of sets a good balance for this, and because the main advantage 
of this (other than controlling cheats) is facilitating players to find 
oponents. But there are some problems, one of the players must be chosen 
host, and it has to be the fastest, this would be easy though, just ping 
(send a light package to the peer, count how much it takes for the peer to 
return it) them and choose the lowest value and set it as host. But 
sometimes when friends and I would play Age of Empires we would choose the 
second fastest host, because the fastest had an issue with his computer that 
made the program shut down and a lot of bad things happen (breaking into 
parallel games, complete falldown, or a very laggy game). So the fastest 
host can't be the best, plus the host might begin downloading something and 
ruin the speed.

What could be a solution to this? I've thought of a "support host" that 
would store all host data as well in case host becomes slower or falls it 
would change to this support host, but it would only create more parrallel 
games (where a game multiplies with one having half of the players and the 
other having the other half) and it would waste more bandwith from host. 
Still I couldn't trust a computer chosen host completely, I never know how 
his computer might be or if he'll lag the game just for the sake of it...

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail



---------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://gameprogrammer.com/mailinglist.html

Other related posts: