Musings about dedicated servers

[TheMegaTurnip]

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.

Bluescreen on Ps4 < Fatal app error.

Also as far as I know the central server deals with nothing more than the BGS an the localisation for NPC's stations ETC, all player traffic is Peer 2 Peer.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

A cursory google, out of curiosity, to see what other games are running Peer to Peer.

As it turns out, both For honour and Warframe. No1 post listed first for both those games?

COMPLAINTS ABOUT NETWORKING.

 

[LeoBartlet]

Would the dedicated servers link into the shared BGS?

Because I foresee ... "problems" with that

The moment you ask someone to pay for a server to host the game is the moment some of those people will begin asking for admin rights to change settings within the server/game.

Isn't going to happen.

 

[LeoBartlet]

A cursory google, out of curiosity, to see what other games are running Peer to Peer.

As it turns out, both For honour and Warframe. No1 post listed first for both those games?

COMPLAINTS ABOUT NETWORKING.

For Honor moved from p2p to traditional servers because well p2p didn't work out well for the game.

I think also Friday the 13th moved from p2p to servers.

 

[babelfisch]

Would the dedicated servers link into the shared BGS?

Because I foresee ... "problems" with that

Why? The servers would be managed by FDEV.

 

[kpmop]

So I've had an idea!

In general the P2P setup works OK. Ish. But it's when there are a lot of CMDRs in the same system or instance that problems occur? So set up dedicated instance servers for these situations - e.g. normally busy systems (shinny-D etc), CGs or DWx/DGx waypoints. These servers would be setup in advance or when traffic hit a certain level. In CG systems there would be several - one for each station, CZ etc. - so instead of a CMDR joining a P2P instance they would be connected to these dedicated instance servers instead which could hopefully stably handle a larger number of CMDRs simultaneously.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

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).

Which servers? Everything? Then each server instance needs its own BGS database. Not every server? Well, then we need to connect each dedicated server also to the main Frontier servers, or each client has to hit two servers.

Mission servers? So you're going to have your own mission generation?

Connection servers? So you want really a private group?

You want to reduce lag? So you really want a regional server, then, to avoid latency?

Match-making servers are central, it's only when playing together with others that P2P kicks in.

Anyone's progress (credits, materials, location) would still need to be sent to Frontier central servers.

I am not sure what this is supposed to be...

 

[amigacooke]

I am not sure what this is supposed to be...

A well meaning suggestion, which is to be applauded even if it doesn't work.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

A well meaning suggestion, which is to be applauded even if it doesn't work.

Thanks, because that made me realize I answered in a techie way what is essentially a techie problem, and therefore seems to have come across as more dismissive then intended.

It is more that I don't understand what the OP is proposing, and what elements would move to a dedicated server. We have a mix of central (lots of it, basically everything that doesn't involve flying with others) and P2P. If only the P2P would go dedicated, you still have the central portions. With client/server, you run into the added latency between each CMDR in the instance and the central server, rather than a direct connection to another peer.

A lot of these threads suffer from a lack of understanding how the game currently works, networking-wise, so I am mostly looking for some clarification and answers.

 

[Sooden]

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).

so its on a server machine and not the player machine (as if, one of the players had become the server ,thats how it functions the same). it's a server emulated player and not a player with their own pc that hold the instance together.

So its not the player being the host... with their computer playing music, running Vr, watching viedos... Getting local throttles, or reliant on a public level internet connection... But a server 'player' holding it all together, a server player that doesn't need to render graphics, listen to music, worry about friends and family steeling bandwidth.

Like when you make a simple multi player game, and the server has a host player, who deals with the messages of client connection and nothing more. That host would be the same as we have in P2P part from, it doesn't have to render the game... and if they so wanted to, the could add some code... have it handle the physics or at least interpolate object position and compensate, allowing for high pings to run smoothly.

i get what you mean, i think

 

[Aashenfox]

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.

This. Plus they could dev magic things into instances to make them more intersting, seasonal or fun.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

This warrants as much musing as Elite: Play By Mail... except a PbM game could actually work.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Mission servers timing out now.

Bug report:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...nect-To-Missions-Server?p=7405025#post7405025

 

[MarkAusten]

Which servers? Everything? Then each server instance needs its own BGS database. Not every server? Well, then we need to connect each dedicated server also to the main Frontier servers, or each client has to hit two servers.

Mission servers? So you're going to have your own mission generation?

Connection servers? So you want really a private group?

You want to reduce lag? So you really want a regional server, then, to avoid latency?

Match-making servers are central, it's only when playing together with others that P2P kicks in.

Anyone's progress (credits, materials, location) would still need to be sent to Frontier central servers.

I am not sure what this is supposed to be...

The servers have little to do with latency, that's mainly a function of the Internet itself. It also has little to do with geography it seems. There are times when my connection to a local server suffers a large latency whereas and at the same time, a connection to the far side of the world is astonished fast.

 

[S~P]

Looks like the servers are going down again, can't connect to mission board......

 

[babelfisch]

Thanks, because that made me realize I answered in a techie way what is essentially a techie problem, and therefore seems to have come across as more dismissive then intended.

It is more that I don't understand what the OP is proposing, and what elements would move to a dedicated server. We have a mix of central (lots of it, basically everything that doesn't involve flying with others) and P2P. If only the P2P would go dedicated, you still have the central portions. With client/server, you run into the added latency between each CMDR in the instance and the central server, rather than a direct connection to another peer.

A lot of these threads suffer from a lack of understanding how the game currently works, networking-wise, so I am mostly looking for some clarification and answers.

Just hosting the instance, nothing else.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

I made a diagram... It compares what we have now on the left, with what a dedicated server option looks like. The blue arrows are traffic to the central servers, which on the left is single directional -- on the right, of course, it is bi-directional. On the left you see the P2P connections to others in orange (obviously not all shown). The millisecond latency between the hosts in the network are workable estimates. All of this excludes any time spent on the server processing.

In our current system, we use central servers for everything but position, vector, etc. of other players in the instance (even match-making is done centrally). So, for anything other than multiplayer, the use of dedicated servers changes nothing.

However, for multiplayer, the situation with dedicated servers is much worse than P2P, latency wise. It's not necessarily terrible if all CMDRs are in the UK or nearby close to the servers, but even then will have a longer network path (from CMDR #1 to the server, from server to CMDR #6, etc.)*. For those that are further away from the servers, things will get dramatically worse. US West will need nearly half a second to get updated info about position and vector of all CMDRs. That is not going to be a pleasant experience.

So... regional servers? Sure, but then you have to also move the other central servers to the same location, and suddenly we're all isolated from each other. No more US/EU joint instances...


* This doesn't have to be the worst case scenario. If there is a constant interval to the server, say every 100 ms, the server could send the latest info of all CMDRs it has in the instance, some will have come in more recent than others. So, the numbers could be a little lower. However, it doesn't fundamentally change the story.

 

[babelfisch]

so its on a server machine and not the player machine (as if, one of the players had become the server ,thats how it functions the same). it's a server emulated player and not a player with their own pc that hold the instance together.

So its not the player being the host... with their computer playing music, running Vr, watching viedos... Getting local throttles, or reliant on a public level internet connection... But a server 'player' holding it all together, a server player that doesn't need to render graphics, listen to music, worry about friends and family steeling bandwidth.

Like when you make a simple multi player game, and the server has a host player, who deals with the messages of client connection and nothing more. That host would be the same as we have in P2P part from, it doesn't have to render the game... and if they so wanted to, the could add some code... have it handle the physics or at least interpolate object position and compensate, allowing for high pings to run smoothly.

i get what you mean, i think

Almost!

You would also have WAY more bandwidth available.

 

[babelfisch]

I made a diagram... It compares what we have now on the left, with what a dedicated server option looks like. The blue arrows are traffic to the central servers, which on the left is single directional -- on the right, of course, it is bi-directional. On the left you see the P2P connections to others in orange (obviously not all shown). The millisecond latency between the hosts in the network are workable estimates. All of this excludes any time spent on the server processing.



In our current system, we use central servers for everything but position, vector, etc. of other players in the instance (even match-making is done centrally). So, for anything other than multiplayer, the use of dedicated servers changes nothing.

However, for multiplayer, the situation with dedicated servers is much worse than P2P, latency wise. It's not necessarily terrible if all CMDRs are in the UK or nearby close to the servers, but even then will have a longer network path (from CMDR #1 to the server, from server to CMDR #6, etc.). For those that are further away from the servers, things will get dramatically worse. US West will need nearly half a second to get updated info about position and vector of all CMDRs. That is not going to be a pleasant experience.

So... regional servers? Sure, but then you have to also move the other central servers to the same location, and suddenly we're all isolated from each other. No more US/EU joint instances...

We've already been there on page one...

 

[Mangal Oemie]

The servers have little to do with latency, that's mainly a function of the Internet itself. It also has little to do with geography it seems. There are times when my connection to a local server suffers a large latency whereas and at the same time, a connection to the far side of the world is astonished fast.

The servers have processing time, and network latency is a feature of the network (including the internet). Any network latency will always be on top of any server processing time. As we all have a geographical position in the world and are limited by speed of light (and slower speed of copper, time required to cross routers, etc.) this will be different for people located around the world. Of course, on top of that you can still have additional network latency because of the "last mile" technology in use, or whatever network path was chosen (which is being manipulated, and of course, routing the traffic through China when you wanted to go straight EU to US) would increase latency, etc.

For small messages (which our P2P messages are), latency is by far the limiting network factor. For large file sizes (movies, large image files) it is bandwidth.