There's more at play here other than just the speed and bandwidth of the network connection. In a client-server model, the server will be doing most of the leg work in terms of working out who is where and what state they are in, and tracking all the non-player objects as well like missiles, asteroids and so on. In P2P that work is handed back to the clients with cross-checking going on and so lots of traffic between all the clients. Switching to client server would mean bypassing those checks and calculations which may not be a straightforward thing to do if the game wasn't written with that possibility in mind - in fact it might have been written to make that distinctly difficult to do, to prevent shenanigans.
Almost a year later, Multiplayer is still a mess
- Thread starter Toumal
- Start date
- Status
I think the topic title is a bit unfortunate, as Toumal admitted earlier. It's actually been quite a fun discussion on people's opinions on the current state of play and what (if anything) could be changed. Those opinions vary quite a lot, which is very interesting!
Potentially so... I think the easiest (relatively, of course!) way to do it would be for the server to pretend it's just another client, which everyone else's data happens to be relaying via.
That way, unbeknownst to the client, the server's actually authoritative for all the positions, updates etc and sends it all out to others. It wouldn't solve all the problems people have, but it would improve the scaling possibilities at least.
Last edited:
That's not "somewhat decent". That's horrible
. I feel for you.For reference, 1.6 Mbps is less than a third of the average U.S. download speed FIVE years ago or about a seventh of what it is today.
It's sad that ISPs still promote the massively unbalanced connections where the download bandwidth is 10x or even 20x the upload speed. Depending on what you get doing, your download speed can easily be constrained by a weak upload. This has fortunately gotten a lot better over the past 5 years or so. If you check out http://www.internetsociety.org/map/global-internet-report/ , there are still a few "10x" countries left (this is average, so what's available in your neck of the woods is altogether different).
Seriously, though, 128 kbps up is a real limitation that will not play well with a game like E
.
Last edited:
The OP is both correct and incorrect about the networking in Elite and what it takes to fix it...and missing a few really massively major points in the little details like switching from P2P to a hybrid P2P/C-S setup.
P2P is actually incredibly common for online gaming, console games make extensive use of it and it works quite well for them. It really is a good and viable option when you've got limited numbers of possible players interacting together, especially if your matchmaking is set up properly to only allow connections that are all stable and of the same general latency and loss. Follow those protocols and P2P is quite effective. Not very secure, which is why so many console games are hacked to hell and back, but otherwise a very effective networking option for limited player count gaming.
The problem in Elite is people do NOT take into consideration their own latency and loss and try to connect with people who are literally half a planet away from them, and that just mucks the entire P2P thing all the hell and back. These people then complain that the P2P networking is all messed up and that FD can't do anything right, despite the fact that THEY bypassed the matchmaking protocols and caused the issues themselves. This isn't a failure of the P2p networking, this is the players breaking it on purpose. Check where the person you want to wing with lives in the real world, or where they are logging in from in the real world, before you actually wing up with them, you will find that the issues you experience, unable to see each other, NPCs, etc, vanish totally if only wing with people relatively close geographically who also have a decent connection type. That's the other important bit people overlook, connection type. Someone just above said their 1.6mb/128kbps connection was good, no, it's not, that's g rubbish. This person may well have NO options on their connection, it's beyond their ability to change, and that's unfortunate, but that's the person's problem, no one else, and they need to accept that online gaming with other people may not be the best option for them. Sorry, sucks to say that, sucks even worse to have to live with it, but that IS reality, your connection isn't good enough for any decent online game, stick with games like WoW or EvE where real time and game time are two totally different things and your high latency and loss won't be a big factor in how well the game works online.
Another thing overlooked by the OP is location of c/s servers, as that's really quite important and is usually totally overlooked and ignored by people. Elite would need servers in North America and Europe at the very least, a Pan-Oceanic server may also be needed, I have no numbers on how many people in that area play the game though. I do know from my Aussie and Kiwi friends in MechWarrior Online, folks I've gamed with for 20 years in MechWarrior games starting with dialup, that they do NOT generally like using Pan-Oceanic servers, they get better connections-more stable-connecting straight to North America as opposed to connecting to places like Singapore or Japan, and they actually don't use the Pan-Oceanic server in Singapore that MechWarrior Online has due to that fact.
Now, when you have multiple servers hosting the game in various regions of the globe, that's usually no big deal as they don't communicate to each other much, they report back to a master server for player stats and that's usually about it. HOWEVER, Elite doesn't just keep track of our player stats, it keeps track of the ENTIRE galaxy which includes the BGS. Get some funky results with that now due to the Solo/Group/Open options we've got which allows people to counter each other's attempts at BGS manipulation in real time. Now, imagine that happening across multiple servers around the globe, as they ALL have to connect to a master or masters somewhere and be kept synced in real time. That's a major thing, not a little thing, and it's going to take extra programming and hardware and cost extra money.
Another little massively major thing the OP overlooked, creating the networking code for a c/s setup. Now, this could be as easy as, relatively speaking, simply creating and replacing the current P2P network coding, as his idea for working alongside it doesn't work. Or it could require either a complete rewrite of the netcode AND a total recompiling of the core engine OR refactoring just the netcode itself. ANY way you go about it, we're talking 12 to 18 months of work, lots of money spent, and bugs, bugs, bugs for quite a bit after the work is done. Oh, yeah, you also have to redo game mechanics along with the netcode as it's meant to interact with the current P2P netcode not c/s netcode and the two don't work the same, which is why it will take so long to make happen. I've helped with this sort of work before, PITA doesn't begin to cover it. Piranha Games Inc, developers of MechWarrior Online, did this themselves as the CryEngine they are using is a client auth network based engine, and they had to have a serverside auth network, security issues and other things required this. Took them 18 months to get the basics done, and they are still working on getting the netcode working properly a few years later. It ain't easy, it ain't quick, it's expensive and the bugs created by this..oh my god. CIG has been having to deal with this exact same issue for Star Citizen, it's been driving them nuts and I'm still waiting to see exactly how they get around it, as they are using a hybrid client/server setup, not a pure client auth or server auth, so it's even more complicated and fun.
Now, don't get me wrong, I personally loathe P2P networking for any game with PvP in it, it's horrible, a security black hole, as any console game shows and we can see quite easily with Elite, as well as being so bad for connecting with people who aren't geographically close to you AND who also have good connections. I am VERY MUCH a client/server with strictly serverside authorization only netcode man, security is so much better, latency and loss issues are much easier to deal with, it's really the best of all possible netcode options for online gaming. It's also the most expensive in terms of hardware, software, monetary costs and development and upkeep costs. It's also not something you suddenly decide to change to after setting up your networking system as FD has done.
P2P can work quite well, as I said, not my choice at all but it works. Changing it to what is the best possible option, very expensive and very time consuming, not viable by any means.
P2P is actually incredibly common for online gaming, console games make extensive use of it and it works quite well for them. It really is a good and viable option when you've got limited numbers of possible players interacting together, especially if your matchmaking is set up properly to only allow connections that are all stable and of the same general latency and loss. Follow those protocols and P2P is quite effective. Not very secure, which is why so many console games are hacked to hell and back, but otherwise a very effective networking option for limited player count gaming.
The problem in Elite is people do NOT take into consideration their own latency and loss and try to connect with people who are literally half a planet away from them, and that just mucks the entire P2P thing all the hell and back. These people then complain that the P2P networking is all messed up and that FD can't do anything right, despite the fact that THEY bypassed the matchmaking protocols and caused the issues themselves. This isn't a failure of the P2p networking, this is the players breaking it on purpose. Check where the person you want to wing with lives in the real world, or where they are logging in from in the real world, before you actually wing up with them, you will find that the issues you experience, unable to see each other, NPCs, etc, vanish totally if only wing with people relatively close geographically who also have a decent connection type. That's the other important bit people overlook, connection type. Someone just above said their 1.6mb/128kbps connection was good, no, it's not, that's g rubbish. This person may well have NO options on their connection, it's beyond their ability to change, and that's unfortunate, but that's the person's problem, no one else, and they need to accept that online gaming with other people may not be the best option for them. Sorry, sucks to say that, sucks even worse to have to live with it, but that IS reality, your connection isn't good enough for any decent online game, stick with games like WoW or EvE where real time and game time are two totally different things and your high latency and loss won't be a big factor in how well the game works online.
Another thing overlooked by the OP is location of c/s servers, as that's really quite important and is usually totally overlooked and ignored by people. Elite would need servers in North America and Europe at the very least, a Pan-Oceanic server may also be needed, I have no numbers on how many people in that area play the game though. I do know from my Aussie and Kiwi friends in MechWarrior Online, folks I've gamed with for 20 years in MechWarrior games starting with dialup, that they do NOT generally like using Pan-Oceanic servers, they get better connections-more stable-connecting straight to North America as opposed to connecting to places like Singapore or Japan, and they actually don't use the Pan-Oceanic server in Singapore that MechWarrior Online has due to that fact.
Now, when you have multiple servers hosting the game in various regions of the globe, that's usually no big deal as they don't communicate to each other much, they report back to a master server for player stats and that's usually about it. HOWEVER, Elite doesn't just keep track of our player stats, it keeps track of the ENTIRE galaxy which includes the BGS. Get some funky results with that now due to the Solo/Group/Open options we've got which allows people to counter each other's attempts at BGS manipulation in real time. Now, imagine that happening across multiple servers around the globe, as they ALL have to connect to a master or masters somewhere and be kept synced in real time. That's a major thing, not a little thing, and it's going to take extra programming and hardware and cost extra money.
Another little massively major thing the OP overlooked, creating the networking code for a c/s setup. Now, this could be as easy as, relatively speaking, simply creating and replacing the current P2P network coding, as his idea for working alongside it doesn't work. Or it could require either a complete rewrite of the netcode AND a total recompiling of the core engine OR refactoring just the netcode itself. ANY way you go about it, we're talking 12 to 18 months of work, lots of money spent, and bugs, bugs, bugs for quite a bit after the work is done. Oh, yeah, you also have to redo game mechanics along with the netcode as it's meant to interact with the current P2P netcode not c/s netcode and the two don't work the same, which is why it will take so long to make happen. I've helped with this sort of work before, PITA doesn't begin to cover it. Piranha Games Inc, developers of MechWarrior Online, did this themselves as the CryEngine they are using is a client auth network based engine, and they had to have a serverside auth network, security issues and other things required this. Took them 18 months to get the basics done, and they are still working on getting the netcode working properly a few years later. It ain't easy, it ain't quick, it's expensive and the bugs created by this..oh my god. CIG has been having to deal with this exact same issue for Star Citizen, it's been driving them nuts and I'm still waiting to see exactly how they get around it, as they are using a hybrid client/server setup, not a pure client auth or server auth, so it's even more complicated and fun.
Now, don't get me wrong, I personally loathe P2P networking for any game with PvP in it, it's horrible, a security black hole, as any console game shows and we can see quite easily with Elite, as well as being so bad for connecting with people who aren't geographically close to you AND who also have good connections. I am VERY MUCH a client/server with strictly serverside authorization only netcode man, security is so much better, latency and loss issues are much easier to deal with, it's really the best of all possible netcode options for online gaming. It's also the most expensive in terms of hardware, software, monetary costs and development and upkeep costs. It's also not something you suddenly decide to change to after setting up your networking system as FD has done.
P2P can work quite well, as I said, not my choice at all but it works. Changing it to what is the best possible option, very expensive and very time consuming, not viable by any means.
Just saw this, sorry for the late reply.
Your afraid I am wrong... Ok. What prompted my reply was your sarcasm about the word "proper" good stuff mate, your a mod as well. If you think this game handles multiplayer well then I can only assume that you are either deluded or telling porkies because you are a fanboy,,, it doesn't,, I use a word I used before again,, period.
Emperor's new clothes or what ?
Seems sensible Zeewolf; -more use/need by game companies would increase supply/demand for more research on it...thus improvement; repped ya.
Last edited:
Yes and open up a whole new can of multifaceted 'meta' worms....All fun, right?
Welcome to the Elite forums!
Although there is indeed a group of people who just come here to troll and senseless bash the game, the amount of Drones you see around who will jump into FD defence and simply accept and bow to everything no matter what is off the charts. It kinda reminds me of some Nintendo fans to an extend.
Anyway, in the hopes that someone will get it, here is a wake up call. Frontier does not care for you or your relatives, you and I can die tomorrow a horrible death and not a single tear or thought will be given - and the reason for this is not because they are monsters, it is because our relation - if you can call it that - can be classified as being "just business".
And since it is just business it is in our best interest (AND THEIRS) to make the product they are selling better, which is exactly what the OP is trying to do by talking about this particular problem that exists (Multiplayer is unstable and unreliable, period) and how it could perhaps be improved. This is how the world moves foward, this is how we improve not only the things around us but ourselves - criticizing, showing the problems that exist and how to possibly fix it.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Last edited:
Is it just as much off the chart as the hyperbole you just posted?
Ignoring the rest of your post as it was idiotic - but this point bears some further comment. I think you miss the crux of the argument. No one is saying that the multiplayer functionality in this game is perfect, what they're saying is that effort is better expended on other elements of the game. Which would go onto improve the game and, as you point out, increase sales.
Put another way: If you have a choice between adding new content and functionality into the game, or revamping multiplayer to use a client/server architecture - which do you think will benefit the most players?
Zee, I beg to differ. We're not talking about some technical problem that can just be overcome by "better technology". I mean sure, connection qualities will improve, but we're still talking about principle issues here: With P2P, each additional peer compounds the issues. You can't just "improve" something that's really an issue of logic and facts.
Now I'm not saying P2P is not a valid technology - but you have to accept and understand its limitations: It is not well suited for lots of peers. It is not well suited for connections with more than slight latencies. You can't write "better P2P code" that somehow circumvents these points, you can merely try to get the best possible deal under the circumstances. Which is what Frontier does with their matchmaking and island health measurements.
Also, the bitcoin blockchain is a particularly bad example because it is the opposite of what you want in a computer game about space flight. It can take many minutes for your transactions to be validated by a sufficient number of participants, and even then there's no telling when it will have reached all participants in the block chain.
I guess my main point is: I understand you guys who say that Frontier has limited resources, and perhaps they really don't have the time to deal with a C/S hybrid implementation. This is a thread about wishful thinking, and I get that. But still, I think such wishful thinking is not entirely unreasonable on my side. I believe the benefits I listed earlier are ultimately worth it. Even if such an implementation were to come in Season 3 or beyond. It's something worth pursuing, don't you agree?
If you ask me whether they should do this before mission improvements and such, of course not. Mission improvements, deeper core gameplay etc. is vital at this point, even more vital than warzones that support 64+ human commanders. But eventually we'll get to a point where the respawning of capital ships, the "parallel universes" of instances even during core game events is so jarring that it takes people out of the game. I know it takes me out of the game knowing that things like capital ships and stations are just props, existing in all instances, respawning infinitely if chased off or destroyed.
It's not easy but it'd be worth it - perhaps not RIGHT NOW, but down the line. Sometime in the future.
I get giddy at the thought of having the flexibility of EDs instances, coupled with dedicated, frontier-hosted ingame locations that just bristle with activity. Participating in community goals or decisive battles would be worth for the spectacle alone.
Last edited:
The servers they have run on AWS. Not exactly "terrible", just more expensive than colocation. These however run the galaxy stuff, background simulation, landing pad allocations and matchmaking.
The actual game itself is peer to peer. Which is a blessing (400 billion star galaxy, no problem) and a curse (one bad client connection can ruin an entire instance, low max instance population, consistency issues with everything that isn't server-moderated)
So far since the first days of a beta, myself and 2 other friends have been trying to play together, And we havent managed to do so even once over the year.
If we are very lucky, 2 of us might end up in an instance together, but we have never manged to get the 3 of us in the same instance at the same time.
P2p is simply not suited to a game like this where you have so many players from so many places that want to play together,
Fundamental design flaw.
And please dont say something stupid like "me and my friends can do it" Thats the nature of p2p, no two players have the same connections to elite
If we are very lucky, 2 of us might end up in an instance together, but we have never manged to get the 3 of us in the same instance at the same time.
P2p is simply not suited to a game like this where you have so many players from so many places that want to play together,
Fundamental design flaw.
And please dont say something stupid like "me and my friends can do it" Thats the nature of p2p, no two players have the same connections to elite
Last edited:
Hrm, seems to me the whole problem with p2p is in general (yes I know there's advantages with server, but please understand) the main disadvantage with p2p as it is now, is it relies on all players connections and their computers, so if someone's connection is having issues for whatever reason it becomes a mess quite easily, where with a server there would be less so because only the person with the bad net would be affected, since the server would tell other players where the person is, and what he was doing, and they would be able to try to interact with him, and attack him, the person with the bad connection would for example die, because server would be confirming hits, even if he didn't see them...
So yeah..But yes, peer to peer also has advantages, personally I think a hybrid system of sort, where the server makes sure that clients connection is acceptable, so everyone else isn't pulled down if there's one else.
Let the matchmaking server tell people with bad connections to only connect with people of similar level or none at all, maybe allow client to send info to server that informs it of latency to server, maybe region or such, stability of connection and such, so matchmaking server can make a better decision on who to match with who.
So yeah..But yes, peer to peer also has advantages, personally I think a hybrid system of sort, where the server makes sure that clients connection is acceptable, so everyone else isn't pulled down if there's one else.
Let the matchmaking server tell people with bad connections to only connect with people of similar level or none at all, maybe allow client to send info to server that informs it of latency to server, maybe region or such, stability of connection and such, so matchmaking server can make a better decision on who to match with who.
FD's P2P protocols actually don't try and make connections between players with disproportionate connections, the Matchmaking server actually does it's job very nicely, it won't put people in an instance who have drastically different connection types, latency and loss will all be within very small difference ranges for best playing conditions.
PLAYERS on the other hand, well, they pay no attention to these types of things and try to connect people with latency of 30ms to people with latency of 300ms or worse, and then blame the system for THEIR screw up. P2P works just fine when it's allowed to actually work as designed, players overriding that is entirely on the players.
Client/Server would be awesome, it's also not very likely to happen in Elite..ever. The time to rework the networking, big undertaking, the cost, also big, and the hardware requirements, colocation hosting, etc, massive undertaking. This isn't a PvP based game, it's not really a multiplayer game, it's just an online game where you CAN play with others. If you let the networking determine who you play with, the connections will be good enough, not great, but good enough. PvP will always be a joke due to that, and joining up with friends who aren't in your same geographic area AND also have a connection close to identical to your own, yeah, no, not a good idea.
Unless, of course, the commodity market that is "cloud-hosting" shifts. Dedicated servers aren't actually required. Dedicated capacity on a non-geographic platform is. If AWS pricing drops down enough to warrant a look, I'll bet FD will because it isn't that much a change if you're continuing to use the existing AWS/Match-making server system -> you just point the clients to a "controlling client" which is actually a server on the AWS platform.
It seems like you should probably make some local friends, if your objective is to get instanced with friends. It is what it is. We all know that many (most?) client-server games have different regional servers, so it would be dishonest to imply that the choice of network topology dictates who one gets matched with.
I, for example, would come back to the game and pay a subscription fee for a C/S-based ED. Even though several latency-critical, PvP-heavy C/S-based MMOs thrive without. Apparently the Cosmetic Shop concept is far expandable.
Indulge me & allow me to explain how P2P, entirely subjectively, ruined the three greatest reasons to play ED & drove me away, mmkay? ^^
First i painfully noticed how far ED's multiplayer experience is from that of a conventional MMO. Tiny instances with rubber-banding, disappearing player + NPC ships, almost non-binding events without a state-defining server broke the immersion ED's many strong aspects had created. 1st strike.
Client-side simulation allows so much more mischief than most players seem to imagine. Not going into details, ofc, however this devalues most I can achieve in ED as a competitive player:
For me there is not much fun in PvP if you a) feel permanently unsure if things are kosher at all and b) everyone losing, including myself, can effortlessly withdraw at any time. Firewall-rules plus hotkey, some1? It painfully debases victory and takes away all the thrill. 2nd strike. Ouch, that one hurt.
Trading also has competitive aspects, you feel pride in your ships, your virtual riches, the skill and the persistence that led there. Unless, ofc, parking afk in a warzone with active scripts would have led to the same results. And might very well be the way the other guy got his superior vessel. So, the economic exploits don't feel good anymore either. 3rd strike.
So all my three primary motivation aspects, immersion, thrill of PvP and pride on virtual possessions, single-handedly annihilated by P2P. Some1 give that concept an equally abstract medal. ^^
On a side-note, ever received serious threats of assault and battery from a player you devastated in PvP? I did, and in that case a game-server between your clients, instead of a P2P-connection revealing your home's IP-address, provides some comfort.
- Status