On Servers : MW2 Host Migration!

posted by 3Suns

Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:45:46 AM EST

So, watching the new MW2 vid, I noticed immediately that it will be supporting host migration.  I have been playing a fair amount of TF2 on the PC, and I have to say, I miss the opportunity to set up my own room with a map and options of my choice.  Sure, there are literally thousands of servers to choose from on the PC, and sure, the connection discrepancies are considerably reduced, but I really miss not being able to set up the room just the way I want it, or play the map I want to play (often times, the map I want to play is either not being served at all, is being served and is full, or is being served and is empty).  I miss the control.

I think the current types of servers can be categorized into three groups:  

  1. The PC dedicated server set up, where gamers join a server of their choosing, and come and go as they please - but without any control as to the settings of the game.
  1. The Console client/server model, where a gamer configures the options/conditions under which he would like to play, and then "hosts" a room, or lobby (to which matchmaking services bring other gamers), the actual server of which is often chosen by the software itself according to connection speed.
  1. The hybrid a la L4D(360) wherein a company provides an entire server farm on which a game is served as directed by the gamer/host's configuration.

I used to argue for 1 or 3, but for the first time since Microsoft introduced the client/server model (on the original Xbox), I realize that I am willing to trade some connection advantage/disadvantage for the incredible control of "client" hosting, especially if the software also provides host migration.  What do you guys think?  Which is best?  

  • ::


Tags: Servers, client, dedicated server, host migration (all tags)

Comments Disabled | 6 comments

  •  yeah (none / 0)

    great post

    Usually i would say number 1 always is the best, but it really does depend on the game, For example Gears of War 1 on number 1 would have been ideal. For COD specifically, they almost always have kick ass development in terms of their online stability with average internet and number 2 would work fine.

    I want to see host chooses options, then gets a dedicated server for his room ;)

    Not all who wander are lost

    by Zoso Fan on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 02:08:19 PM EST

  •  I think that choice #1 would be the one... (none / 0)

    which is the most ideal. #3 sounds good, but when there aren't enough servers to handle the sheer amount of gamers, take for instance Valve's L4D, latentcy becomes a huge factor. I think Valve severely underestimated the initial popularity of that new IP and although they've improved the dedicated server host issue by adding more, it didn't convince many players that dedicated servers was the way to go.

    The problem really lies in MS' XBL client/server model (choice #2). When people that don't necessarily have a good broadband connection (both d/l & u/l) who host games, it significantly adds to problems of latentcy. It really doesn't matter if a group of players are closer to a specific host, but rather how fast the host's connection is to handle both the reception and transfer of info for multiple feeds. Until people accept that fact with MS' model, were not going anywhere fast.

    BTW: Good post to start off the discussion, Suns aka "The Golden Arches"! ;)

    Friends don't let friends two-piece.

    by Blankman on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 04:27:45 PM EST

    •  bwahahaahaha (none / 0)

      1 Billion Newbs Schooled.

      (The school fair TF2 room was a resounding success.  At some point, I want to write it up.  Don't know when I will have the time, though.)

      Thanks for the comments, guys.

      by 3Suns on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 09:11:45 PM EST

      [ Parent ]

    •  the issue with #2 (none / 0)

      is that in some cases it really does create an unfair advantage that was not intended to take place in the game itself, therefore changing the nature of the game. Spefically in the case of Gears of War, the host issue was an extremely controversial subject and the game play style of players had to be changed when dealing with the host, etc... #3 is nice but it takes up a lot, and for some companies too much, of resources. I would probably then have to say that #1 is the best case scenario for both players and companies.

      by Noobpancake on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 12:49:51 PM EST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Skimmed through it. (none / 0)

    I've always been a fan of #1. I'm not feeling well at the moment, but I'll go more into detail later.

    "Vuht? Ze Panzerz? WHO LET ZE PANZERZ OUWT?!?!?!?!"

    by Grymm on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 09:37:19 PM EST

Comments Disabled | 6 comments