p2p vs. client/server

Why was peer-to-peer chosen over client/server for hosting multiplayer games online?|||Epiphenomenon|||Simple; the game is run as a simulation. All computers have to run the simulation otherwise net traffic would be insane. This isn't some FPS with 32 moving entities.|||because hosting 500 servers to handle games is a silly thing to for Stardock to do.



but having some muppet hosting a game on his single core laptop that is using his neighbours WiFi is even worse.



remember that if the server looses connectivity or crashes, the entire game goes down in an instant. P2P lets the game continue when one computer disappears.



in the competitive environment, having any computer go is really bad, but it's not too much of an issue if you're just playing for fun (of course if you disconnected it royally sucks, but that's more often than not something wrong on your end).



[EDIT:] of course Xenoc also hit a home run in the above post too.|||Much less lag.|||Leyline|||BulletMagnet||||||Xenoc|||Spooky|||client-server sucks for RTS or RTS-like games. this isn't a shooter.|||For P2P architecture to work flawlessly the users will need more information on conenctions than just the pings.



They need to know:

- Longest information route time (ping) between any two hosts, if so which two.

- Sim speed statistics of any player

- Upload bandwidth

- Download bandwidth



A connectivity index which combines all of the above would be preferable

A calculation may be as follows:



(ping to player 1 + ping to p2 + ping top3 + ping to p4...)

- (10 + simspeed) * 100



If simspeed is negative the score increases.

If upload bandwidth is less than number of clients * threshold then add say 200 to the connectivity index

same for bandwidth.



The higher the score, the worst the connection is.|||There is also a cost factor. Especially that supcom is already p2p to begin with.



Economy > Technology