{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/28/2017 6:03:06 PM
18
This analogy is incredibly incorrect. P2P and dedicated servers both have pros and cons for connection quality (completely ignoring cost) and pretending like dedicated servers are a magical cure-all is misleading at best.
English
-
I don't think the OP, nor many that understands host servers, networking, and programming (an odd combination), are suggesting they are the magic bullet that solves everything. It will however reduce more negative effects than it would create, thus making the gaming experience better for everyone. Where is the downside?
-
If there are no servers near you, it makes the game worse for you and all your friends. Downside: [ ] not shown [x] shown P2P networking is objectively better, so long as the peers can be trusted (check) and their internet connections aren't complete dogshit (YMMV). Where it sucks is if your internet connection is dogshit, because you'll see an uhuh on your screen, then it'll turn into a nuh-uh when you catch up with the swarm, and then (as opposed to client/server) you can blame it on everybody else instead of your own connection.
-
Edited by JasperGTR: 6/1/2017 7:08:30 PMThis would be true if there aren't regional servers, and equally true if you were peered with another system in your region. Since that doesn't happen, I'll disagree 100% with your suggested downside. If we were guaranteed to be peered with others within a region, you're still relying on stable connections (which is a variable beyond the other players' control). Whereas the server wouldn't need to be updated more than a few times per second to make action consistent beyond that particular peer. The downside I was referring to is using a common regional server model currently implemented by other games - not a single server network in one place (is not feasible in a global environment - my apologies, I assumed this was given). And I'll also disagree about the bad connection situation. I personally use a symmetric 2Gbps enterprise class internet connection and still experience problems. So every single part of lag (Vosik, PvP, or even patrolling) I experience is well beyond my control.
-
[quote]And I'll also disagree about the bad connection situation. I personally use a symmetric 2Gbps enterprise class internet connection and still experience problems. So every single part of lag (Vosik, PvP, or even patrolling) I experience is well beyond my control.[/quote] Thanks for illustrating my point: P2P lets you blame your problems on other people, and maintain the faith that your wife is beautiful and your internet is always perfect.
-
Not sure I'm following. Are you suggesting that a 2Gbps network connection is insufficient?
-
See, it's always someone else's fault, and the complaint always goes "I pay $xxx.xx for my Internet, so I have a massive willy and know how to set a network up".
-
Edited by JasperGTR: 6/1/2017 7:08:57 PMI'm not sure how my network connection is able to be debated. It appears you are not familiar with how even a cursory deployment of regional servers, i.e. ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC could be helpful. Fact - my download speed relies on my connection to another user, and their upload speeds. I believe I'm not in control of that. If you know something this 4-time CCIE doesn't, please enlighten me. As someone who has already retired, and now teaching for 2 decades the exact topic we are discussing, I am aware nobody knows everything - and there may be some new method of P2P I'm not aware of. I'd rather you not bow out - but rather elaborate on my fallacy.
-
Since you asked, your fallacies in that post were: - Argument from authority ( [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority[/url] ) - Argument ad hominem ( [url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem[/url] ) Ironically, both are methods of dodging the issue.
-
Edited by JasperGTR: 6/5/2017 9:58:27 PMThey would be fallacies if: #1 I was using my experience/credentials as the only factor. I stated my connection speed. So there is no authority of speeds. I specified one specific level of certification so if you are an architect or equivalent able to discuss, feel free to speak in which ever level you choose - it's impossible to exceed my capacity on this subject. #2 I believe it was you who suggested that my speeds allowed me to blame others. So it was you who avoided the response (and you still have not answered my question). Based on your responses, I don't believe you understand how this works.
-
[quote]Fact - my download speed relies on my connection to another user, and their upload speeds. I believe I'm not in control of that.[/quote] Finally, you get it. Now explain how making everybody talk through a machine that's not even on the connection graph between you guys is going to make the situation better instead of worse. Is there perhaps insufficient bandwidth for a computer game? Surely not, given how large everyone's willy is. Does this "dedicated server" then, perhaps, pluck packets from the future or send them back in time?
-
Because everyone wouldn't be connected to one another. If you're saying this, I believe it shows your knowledge of networking.
-
[quote]Because everyone wouldn't be connected to one another[/quote] OF COURSE THEY WOULD BE, or they wouldn't be able to play an interactive game because they wouldn't be connected. What you meant to say was "because now everyone is connected to one another through a central choke-point", and you now have the burden of demonstrating that making the connection graph larger in this way makes its latency lower. I don't normally double-reply, but your misunderstanding in this case is so egregious that meaningful discussion is impossible if I don't clear it up. The actions of the other players don't teleport onto the server. The other players, and their ISPs don't just disappear.
-
Care to not duck the question? How can inserting an additional node in the connection graph for the game possibly reduce the latency? It's okay to write a big wall of text like you did last time, so long as it actually addresses the question instead of dropping irrelevant buzzwords.
-
Nope, the distinction still works, because your real-life friends live in the same place as you. Unless they're going to be colocating a game server in every telephone exchange, P2P is objectively better than a "regional" server that's guaranteed to be further away. By definition, the best route through a graph is a direct one. A central server can only equal P2P for latency if it happens to be located on the direct route from every peer to every peer.
-
Edited by JasperGTR: 6/1/2017 7:22:54 PMIn simple networking terms - shortest hop count is not necessarily the best path. I believe you're omitting even the most basic things from this discussion. You've omitted connection quality for everyone connected, that a server would minimize to just your connection. There appears to be more to this than you may be aware of. I'm still wondering how you feel my connection is debatable... I'd like to hear how my connection could be a problem. Please don't omit every fact about this discussion just to suit a certain position (that dedicated servers would not improve the player's experience). Please consider all of them. *Telephone exchange? lol! Are we using dial-up modems? Global infrastructure has advanced a lot since the '80's. Major ISP hubs are more than sufficient to handle this. Bungie could easily concentrate more resources where more customers reside, and less to where less reside.
-
Unless your ISPs are connected internally more slowly than they're connected externally, the shortest path [i]is necessarily[/i] also the best path, because any other path you'll hypothesise [i]is necessarily[/i] a superset of it.
-
Edited by JasperGTR: 6/5/2017 10:01:45 PMThis was true back in 1993/1994 (see: Distance Vector RIP). Welcome to almost 25 years later. It is true that hop count is still a metric used, there are far greater algorithms (link-state, path vector) and protocols that use them (OSPF, BGP, etc...) to determine the best path to take. My connection has nothing to with internal vs external, as my provider connection are dual 1Gbps (bi-directional, load balanced, VRRP is a given with various remote tracked objects, including XBOX Live and 2 of the Destiny ports (just to add the failover metric in case one ISP connection experiences a connectivity issue outside my network - I can switch paths)), which is routed/switched internally through several 10Gbps ports, which is then allocated the sufficient QoS for each subnet/VLAN, and then further for each device. I believe you stepped in over your head - based on your words used here. I believe I'm not able to have this discussion with someone that doesn't understand simple networking (and hence the main point behind benefits of server-based connections vs P2P). For anyone that understands how this works - I believe they would see the obvious. No need to respond. I feel that you wouldn't understand my replies. I hope your experience in the sequel are improved over the first iteration. Not everyone specializes in networking. I'm sure you have expertise in fields I know nothing about as well.
-
Get out of here with that rationality. It's clearly not welcome here.
