Moving to a server based architecture for P2P would require quite a substantial rewrite of the netcode, with some sort of client-server reconciliation needed (so that both players can agree on their positions etc). The netcode for a lot of FPSes behaves differently for low ping and high ping players. Any ping over 70 or 80 becomes increasingly hard to play and you're forced to aim differently with hitscan weapons. P2P is going to give you the best ping difference and the lowest level of packet loss (introducing a 3rd machine into the network is clearly only going to increase the ping). It's also expensive for Frontier, and hence ultimately us. It does make weeding out hackers a bit easier, but it's by no means the ultimate answer - check the forums for your favourite server moderated FPS and search for 'hacker'.
At least with P2P both players in a fight have the same ping to each other. With a server based architecture, one player is going to have a ping advantage and depending on the netcode it's not necessarily the low ping player that benefits.
At least with P2P both players in a fight have the same ping to each other. With a server based architecture, one player is going to have a ping advantage and depending on the netcode it's not necessarily the low ping player that benefits.
Last edited: