Musings about dedicated servers

[babelfisch]

The "but game X uses dedicated servers" argument is a bit tired unless it's a large scale real time simulation with players interacting around similar design. Most real time simulations are designed around arena instances with limitations that well suited to a dedicated server model. Distributed instances is very useful for an entirely different kind of game.

There are very few examples of open arena real time simulation with MMO type design. Aces High 3 does have pretty large scale open arenas for example however in the case of ED you'd have to redesign massively to limit the amount of players in a fixed instance representing something like a system or remove the "infinite instances" possibility by stopping all game-play that involves interdicting or creating X numbers of connections created anywhere at any time.

There is no infinite instances problem in my proposal. Also no need to stop all gameplay since the game is already capable of switching instances between hosts.

 

[ZeeWolf]

Please read my post again. I never suggested that everyone rents a dedicated server, it would be completely optional.

Why don't you just run your game client on a dedicated server and see if that helps?

oh wait

 

[kpmop]

The basic infrastructure wouldn't change much with an additional server.

It's the number of servers that would be a major change. I don't think it could be done like many online games where you connect to a "world" server (for a start these tend to be regional, although that may not be a bad thing for connection reliability) because you could potentially need a server for every player until they were instanced with another player...

Also the instance servers would need to connect to the adjudication server (or whichever one it is that handles instancing) to make the player connections in the first place...

 

[ALEX CAOS]

Since the topic comes up again and again, here are my ideas about it:

I think it would only work with subscriptions but non paying players shouldn't become 2nd class citizens. Player cap would still be around 32 slots, otherwise I fear lags are too much of a problem when it comes to PvP. I also believe dedicated servers wouldn't work for the entire galaxy / each system since it would get too costly and inefficient.

Let us rent personal servers for a monthly fee (€10-15). The game basically remains the same but instead of hosting an instance yourself it would be handled by your personal server. So everywhere you go you would 'carry' your server with you. This shouldn't be very difficult to achieve since all it does is handing over hosting of an instance to a different machine, which basically already happens in game today.

PS
Personally I don't need this and I don't have any hard feelings about matchmaking since I don't have a problem playing alone. Wanted to share the idea anyway since it seems to be the best solution (for a problem I don't have).

lol ain´t working, network architecture ? Your PC ain´t a server? How to sync? Hope you don´t work in the sector, its like renting a secund Personal Postman and hope the letters will come faster to your house. Or wait buy a secund car mabe traffic jams go down.

No insults but you clearly not deep enough in network topic difficult Problems got difficult solutions, there is ain´t no magic button.

 

[babelfisch]

Why don't you just run your game client on a dedicated server and see if that helps?

oh wait

What are you talking about?

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

Well for a start there's an additional connection between a player and their server. If a player was to join an instance on another server they'd disconnect from "their" server and connect to the other server. If they then leave the instance they'd rejon or more likely create a new server instance and then reconnect this to the mission, adjudication server etc (of course you could maintain the original server instance, but that would need to be kept in sync and probably require another connection between the servers), either way it all starts getting a bit messy and this is just for two players... (This is all off the top of my head, btw! No, really.)

So... No different to the way Peer to Peer works just with a better connection then? Smh.

 

[babelfisch]

It's the number of servers that would be a major change. I don't think it could be done like many online games where you connect to a "world" server (for a start these tend to be regional, although that may not be a bad thing for connection reliability) because you could potentially need a server for every player until they were instanced with another player...

Also the instance servers would need to connect to the adjudication server (or whichever one it is that handles instancing) to make the player connections in the first place...

Servers are virtual anyway, you don't need a physical server for every player.

 

[kpmop]

So... No different to the way Peer to Peer works just with a better connection then? Smh.

With many more connections.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

It's the number of servers that would be a major change. I don't think it could be done like many online games where you connect to a "world" server (for a start these tend to be regional, although that may not be a bad thing for connection reliability) because you could potentially need a server for every player until they were instanced with another player...

Also the instance servers would need to connect to the adjudication server (or whichever one it is that handles instancing) to make the player connections in the first place...

But the resulting connections are infinatly more stable. Why is this even being debated. Time and time again it's shown that MMO's or any likened game, uses decicated serers, becuase the connection is reliable.

A non reliable connection is the thing most likely to kill off these kind of games. I'd rather wait two extra seconds to be instanced, but know I'm going to get one, as opposed to the hit and miss bluescree/Dc bull that the game delivers 5/10 times in the current build.

 

[kpmop]

Servers are virtual anyway, you don't need a physical server for every player.

Of course they'd be virtual but you'd still need to create them and manage them all.

 

[Cmdr Snuffler]

The issue with your own dedicated server is that you will still be in the same boat as P2P...to a certain extent.
You would still be limited by bandwidth unless you rented a very expensive server costing potentially £100's / month.
You would also be limited by that servers location, so if it's in the UK then US players connecting would have a higher ping and lag.

I would simply prefer if FD hosted the dedicated servers themselves...but then again I'm happy with the P2P so far, so I probably wouldn't pay extra even if a custom dedicated server was an option. I do however have a very good business fiber ISP internet connection to my house so I have both very good upload and download rates, so I'm an edge case.

 

[babelfisch]

With many more connections.

No, not really.

 

[Dash]

So the issue between using player to player hosting is that the game, by default, gives the host to the player with the weakest connection (Shown time and time again with instance dynamics), resulting often in people not being able to instance, being bluescreened on drop because the game freaks out trying to find the IP, or straight up disconnects.

Dedicated servers offer none of these issues and with a far more generalised latency. (Im not sure on exactly how it works but I know Battlefield uses a system that tries to keep everyones latency at a similar level throughout the match.) Moreover, it allows FDev to monitor server traffic and optimise the servers based on such infomation, such as peak times, number of people on average in what systems etc etc. In turn allowing for much more control of thier game and a much better policed game. IE: loggers could be monitored and a real time server log could provide the evidence.

There is nothing to be lost with didicated servers and everything to be gained. The only reason I can see anyone contesting this matter is most likely down to them being a serial combat logger (Or cheater to the normal person), who does'nt want to finally have to eat ramifications for thier actions.

o-bloody-7.

Ah ok, thanks for clearing that up. By using p2p, amongst other things, your computer blue screens. And sometimes you struggle to get into an existing instance, or don't like being instanced with somebody on a higher latency link (even if there are no other populated instances available).

And by not using a client-server model, FD are in the dark about who are playing the game, as there is noway of communicating statistics to anybody but the peer group. Glad that's sorted.

You do know that Elite does use central servers right? Whilst a lot of mulitplayer stuff goes direct peer to peer, there is still a connection open to central servers. And if you lose that connection you get booted out of the game.

I get the feeling the main gripe is people on naff connections ruining some ganking. But even that could be solved quicker with a "minimum latency & loss" option (if that isn't already considered), rather that completely rewriting the netcode.

 

[babelfisch]

Of course they'd be virtual but you'd still need to create them and manage them all.

That's why they would get a lot of money for it. Just think about it, €15/month/subscriber. And people aren't 24/7 online and their instance wouldn't be full all the time, so no needed ressources most of the time. A public 32 slot server for CS:S costs €16 each month and it needs to be availalbe with full performance 24/7.

 

[kpmop]

But the resulting connections are infinatly more stable. Why is this even being debated. Time and time again it's shown that MMO's or any likened game, uses decicated serers, becuase the connection is reliable.

A non reliable connection is the thing most likely to kill off these kind of games. I'd rather wait two extra seconds to be instanced, but know I'm going to get one, as opposed to the hit and miss bluescree/Dc bull that the game delivers 5/10 times in the current build.

Yeah for MMOs that have a small world it's feasible to have common servers as players will all be in the same instance, but Elite is 1000s of different instances and joining and leaving these all the time probably wouldn't be much more reliable then the P2P connections we have now...

 

[babelfisch]

The issue with your own dedicated server is that you will still be in the same boat as P2P...to a certain extent.
You would still be limited by bandwidth unless you rented a very expensive server costing potentially £100's / month.
You would also be limited by that servers location, so if it's in the UK then US players connecting would have a higher ping and lag.

I would simply prefer if FD hosted the dedicated servers themselves...but then again I'm happy with the P2P so far, so I probably wouldn't pay extra even if a custom dedicated server was an option. I do however have a very good business fiber ISP internet connection to my house so I have both very good upload and download rates, so I'm an edge case.

The servers obviously would be hosted by FDEV, everything else wouldn't make sense. The problem of the location is true, already mentioned it myself.

 

[amigacooke]

Let's say I want more reliable matchmaking for me and my friends or random strangers. I could pay to use a dedicated server for hosting my instance instead of letting my machine do it which results in more stability. Or I am happy with the current situation and don't rent a server. In that case I only play on dedicated servers when I join the instance of someone who pays for it. Server hosted instances would obviously be prioritised when it comes to matchmaking.

I didn't understand it within the context of those not using dedicated servers not being second class citizens. It seems to me that is inevitable, it's what you're paying for

 

[VR Murgle]

The "but game X uses dedicated servers" argument is a bit tired unless it's a large scale real time simulation with players interacting around similar design. Most real time simulations are designed around arena instances with limitations that well suited to a dedicated server model. Distributed instances is very useful for an entirely different kind of game.

There are very few examples of open arena real time simulation with MMO type design. Aces High 3 does have pretty large scale open arenas for example however in the case of ED you'd have to redesign massively to limit the amount of players in a fixed instance representing something like a system or remove the "infinite instances" possibility by stopping all game-play that involves interdicting or creating X numbers of connections created anywhere at any time.

Given that the E: D galaxy is procedurally generated and everything persistent about said galaxy is already running on a central server. In the current system instances are generated only when a player enters said instance and I see no reason why that couldn't be done on a dedicated server.

As for your "infinite instances", they're not so infinite as the number of instances running at any given time is limited by the number of player in game at that particular time. Seeing how at any give time the vast majority of the galaxy is empty the server requirements of E: D probably aren't as different from your average MMO. Especially since right now the matchmaking server already needs to keep track of every player in order to be able to determine whether or not to instance players together.

Modern MMO's are usually "sharded" meaning that every instance in the game world is replicated across multiple servers and given the size of some the worlds in these MMO's that quickly adds up. Funnily E: D might not need to run (as many) different server to accommodate all it's players because the chance of large numbers of player congregating in one place. There are far more places for player to be in E: D so chances are they'll be far more spread out than they would be in your average MMO.

That isn't to say that E: D doesn't present some unique challenges, the modes for instance, would be difficult, if not impossible, to replicate in a client server setting. A central world server would probably also need to be split up into several regional servers but we already have to deal with problems caused by the inter webs.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

If we had a standalone game that required no internet connection...

 

[babelfisch]

I didn't understand it within the context of those not using dedicated servers not being second class citizens. It seems to me that is inevitable, it's what you're paying for

You wouldn't be a 2nd class citizen because whenever encountering someone who pays for a server you would simply join it, without paying for it but still getting the benefits.