Diablo® III

Diablo 3 LAN (not an offline mode QQ)

86 Human Rogue
8625
Posts: 2,170
TL;DR version
4 people all in a room playing the same game on the same server. Instead of the server handing 4 sets of the same information to each of them 4 separate times, just one set is sent to a host computer, and the other players get data from that host as if they were players at a LAN. Instead of 4 people needing 4 sets of data, they only need one. 8 people only require two, and so on.

Really freaking long version
Over the weekend we had a joint birthday party/lan, and it was pretty sweet. Warcraft 3, TF2, diablo2, and at one point, league of legends. Or, we tried to play league of legends. Each of the games up till league of legends it was possible to just connect directly to each other, but league of legends required a server connection for each client, even for custom games. It was a nightmare, with 10 people all in the same room trying to play at the same time, our bandwidth was choked.

We were all in the same room, connected to the same switch, and all playing in the same custom game, so honestly we only really needed one set of server data, but instead we were having 10 individual sets of the exact same data sent to us. We were suddenly plagued by disconnects, ridiculous ping, and at one point comcast actually shut off our internet for about 15 minutes because of all the trouble we were causing. All this to play with people less than 8 feet away.

When diablo 3 comes out, I'm going to want to play with my friends, and playing in the same room with my friends is even better than just playing with my friends online. However, if we run into these same bandwidth issues, that's going to suck.

My idea is to allow for a pseudo-LAN mode of diablo 3, where your game client recognizes that certain people are all playing in a room together and are all in the same game. The game is set up as if it were an offline lan, where one player would host a game, and the other players connect directly to that host. The player who is pretend-hosting the game gets data for the game, and certain player specific data for all 4 players. Their client then makes 4 copies of the general game data, figures out which player should get which set of player specific data, and sends that data to all of the other players.

What this means is instead of having four different people all getting the same map data, the same mob data, the same player party status data, and so on, just one person gets that server data (since that one set of data will apply the same to each person in that game) and that set is copied and distributed to the other players.

Thoughts on this? I personally don't want to have my lan dreams shot down due to bandwidth issues (like they were this weekend with league of legends. We had a pretty beefy connection speed too, and it just couldn't keep up with 10 people)
Reply Quote
Posts: 3,540
I think this idea is awesome, though one such as me knows not how to make it possible (if it's possible to achieve). Here's hoping those who are wiser than I see this post.

+1
Edited by Giraffasaur on 11/14/2011 12:18 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,120
Good thing D3 is 4 people and not 10, so problem solved ;)

Kidding aside, I imagine the second you allow the client to handle anything that the server would otherwise be handling, you open up the door for exploits and such, as the client could be hacked to send modified data to the others on the LAN.
Edited by PlanetXpress on 11/14/2011 12:19 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,559
11/14/2011 12:19 PMPosted by PlanetXpress
I imagine the second you allow the client to handle anything that the server would otherwise be handling, you open up the door for exploits and such, as the client could be hacked to send modified data to the others on the LAN.

This,

The problem with LAN in a game that supports real money buying power is that Hacks become that much more security sensitive.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,391
Would be fun to play 4 player Hardcore on LAN, but I doubt it will happen with the RMAH taking priority as mentioned above.
Reply Quote
86 Human Rogue
8625
Posts: 2,170
you could just as easily change your own server data. That's like the most basic form of online hacking, just above changing unprotected client side data. The problem isn't changing data you get from the server (which is very easy to begin with) the problem is when you send data back to the server, and the server notices that something doesn't add up.

Going through a middle-man connection would not make it any more or less of a security issue, not even a little bit.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,559
11/14/2011 12:28 PMPosted by Anaphylaxis
Going through a middle-man connection would not make it any more or less of a security issue, not even a little bit.


Unless you have full control of that middle man and know for 100% certain that there isn't any malware monitoring your traffic, then it does increase the security risk.
Reply Quote
86 Human Rogue
8625
Posts: 2,170
Going through a middle-man connection would not make it any more or less of a security issue, not even a little bit.


Unless you have full control of that middle man and know for 100% certain that there isn't any malware monitoring your traffic, then it does increase the security risk.


When I play world of warcraft off of my laptop, my laptop is connecting wirelessly to my PC, which I have basically rigged to be my modem and router in one. Despite what some people might think, even if I changed incoming server data using my PC so that my rogue on my laptop is looting martin fury off of squirrels, the server would notice that this information doesn't add up when my client tried to send information back. Since the server is what saves what happens to my character, I wouldn't actually accomplish anything tangible just changing my own incoming data.

The same is true for this case. It would be like trying to counterfiet money in real life by wearing glasses with money designs on the lenses. You see everything you hold as being money, while the rest of the world recognizes that to be false
Edited by Anaphylaxis on 11/14/2011 12:45 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,559
11/14/2011 12:44 PMPosted by Anaphylaxis
you are what is wrong with the internet


i've seen way worse.

The same is true for this case. It would be like trying to counterfiet money in real life by wearing glasses with money designs on the lenses. You see everything you hold as being something, while the rest of the world recognizes that to be false


It'd also probably be a good way to get your account flagged
Reply Quote
86 Human Rogue
8625
Posts: 2,170
and as a side note, even if there were hypothetical security risks with this system, and I strongly doubt there are, I've got faith in the blizzard networking programmers to squeeze shut the holes and make everything secure again
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,699
It would still be a bog on the internet. Instead of 4 computers sending information to the switch (and then the net directly) you would have 3 computers sending info to the 1 computer then it sending all the packets on to the switch then net. It would still have to be the same amount of info travelling from battle.net to your internal network.

The reason it would need to work this way is because all the info needed for the game to play is on Blizzards server.

My suggestion, get more bandwidth and you won't run into that problem. We pay a low fee of around $40 a month and can get around 7-8 computers playing WoW all at the same time with around 90 ping. No disconnects or lag. (oh and we live out in the sticks, not a city.)

Also depends on the packet compression. Blizzard I would suspect has a good compression going on. As for LoL ... well I don't have much respect for that company due to personal problems I and others I know have had in the past. Wouldn't put it past them to use shoddy networking.
Edited by DragonFlyy on 11/14/2011 12:54 PM PST
Reply Quote
86 Human Rogue
8625
Posts: 2,170
It would still be a bog on the internet. Instead of 4 computers sending information to the switch (and then the net directly) you would have 3 computers sending info to the 1 computer then it sending all the packets on to the switch then net. It would still have to be the same amount of info travelling from battle.net to your internal network.

The reason it would need to work this way is because all the info needed for the game to play is on Blizzards server.

My suggestion, get more bandwidth and you won't run into that problem. We pay a low fee of around $40 a month and can get around 7-8 computers playing WoW all at the same time with around 90 ping. No disconnects or lag. (oh and we live out in the sticks, not a city.)

Also depends on the packet compression. Blizzard I would suspect has a good compression going on. As for LoL ... well I don't have much respect for that company due to personal problems I and others I know have had in the past. Wouldn't put it past them to use shoddy networking.


I'm not sure why it is that you think this method wouldn't result in less network traffic. You did read the post, right? and which part of my post led you to believe I don't think server information is required to play the game?
Edited by Anaphylaxis on 11/14/2011 1:01 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 7,859
You sort of jumped from "4" in your introduction as the example, while the body of your post was talking about "10" connections. It's not really a summary, it's more of a "this is what I want, but let me give you an extreme situation that rarely happens to make my point".

Unless you happen to have a dedicated server rack with a 50 port Cisco switch in it... I'm going with this being entirely because of limitations with your hardware, or your ISP and not because playing games through a remote server is actually an issue that needs looking into. Typical household router/switch hybrids aren't well designed especially for more than a few connections, nor are household residence connections reasonable for having 10 private IP's constantly streaming information from a single public IP. If Comcast contacted you, this is probably why, not because you were hurting their network.

Back in the day it was fine, but games require tons more network resources now a days. Not to mention, a F2P game made by a nobody developer is a pretty bad way to make a point. Isn't LoL known for having lots of issues, and having !@#$ support? I could be wrong, I don't play it.
Reply Quote
Posts: 517
I don't mind an offline version but i believe this would be part of the base game pre login. keep your battlenet characters separated from a 'single player/lan mode' I don't care if this was implimented as an option. in no way would I want them to be connected though. But they don't have it and probably won't impliment it.
Reply Quote
100 Night Elf Druid
6380
Posts: 2,583
It's an interesting idea but I'm not entirely sure how well it would work with a game like this. The main problem is that not everyone is going to be together or even in the same part of the world. So depending on how map data gets sent you might still be looking at everyone getting their own unique data despite being in the same game instance.

Basically, the only way I see this really gaining you anything is if everyone stays grouped up together in a nice tight bundle and even then I'm not sure how much you really would gain. Dunno how much bandwidth map data and the like takes up for D3. If they just use a large number of set tile pieces for their maps then the actual map data might be quite small.
Reply Quote
Posts: 370
TL;DR version
4 people all in a room playing the same game on the same server. Instead of the server handing 4 sets of the same information to each of them 4 separate times, just one set is sent to a host computer, and the other players get data from that host as if they were players at a LAN. Instead of 4 people needing 4 sets of data, they only need one. 8 people only require two, and so on.

Really freaking long version
Over the weekend we had a joint birthday party/lan, and it was pretty sweet. Warcraft 3, TF2, diablo2, and at one point, league of legends. Or, we tried to play league of legends. Each of the games up till league of legends it was possible to just connect directly to each other, but league of legends required a server connection for each client, even for custom games. It was a nightmare, with 10 people all in the same room trying to play at the same time, our bandwidth was choked.

We were all in the same room, connected to the same switch, and all playing in the same custom game, so honestly we only really needed one set of server data, but instead we were having 10 individual sets of the exact same data sent to us. We were suddenly plagued by disconnects, ridiculous ping, and at one point comcast actually shut off our internet for about 15 minutes because of all the trouble we were causing. All this to play with people less than 8 feet away.

When diablo 3 comes out, I'm going to want to play with my friends, and playing in the same room with my friends is even better than just playing with my friends online. However, if we run into these same bandwidth issues, that's going to suck.

My idea is to allow for a pseudo-LAN mode of diablo 3, where your game client recognizes that certain people are all playing in a room together and are all in the same game. The game is set up as if it were an offline lan, where one player would host a game, and the other players connect directly to that host. The player who is pretend-hosting the game gets data for the game, and certain player specific data for all 4 players. Their client then makes 4 copies of the general game data, figures out which player should get which set of player specific data, and sends that data to all of the other players.

What this means is instead of having four different people all getting the same map data, the same mob data, the same player party status data, and so on, just one person gets that server data (since that one set of data will apply the same to each person in that game) and that set is copied and distributed to the other players.

Thoughts on this? I personally don't want to have my lan dreams shot down due to bandwidth issues (like they were this weekend with league of legends. We had a pretty beefy connection speed too, and it just couldn't keep up with 10 people)



You realize that this idea has been debated and critically thought about for the past year right? Also, this game is less than 5 months from ship, do you really think they will have time to incorporate this? Decent idea, wayyyyyyy too late to have anything done about it.
Reply Quote
86 Human Rogue
8625
Posts: 2,170
You sort of jumped from "4" in your introduction as the example, while the body of your post was talking about "10" connections. It's not really a summary, it's more of a "this is what I want, but let me give you an extreme situation that rarely happens to make my point".

Unless you happen to have a dedicated server rack with a 50 port Cisco switch in it... I'm going with this being entirely because of limitations with your hardware, or your ISP and not because playing games through a remote server is actually an issue that needs looking into. Typical household router/switch hybrids aren't well designed especially for more than a few connections, nor are household residence connections reasonable for having 10 private IP's constantly streaming information from a single public IP. If Comcast contacted you, this is probably why, not because you were hurting their network.

Back in the day it was fine, but games require tons more network resources now a days. Not to mention, a F2P game made by a nobody developer is a pretty bad way to make a point. Isn't LoL known for having lots of issues, and having !@#$ support? I could be wrong, I don't play it.


I jumped from 4 people in my hypothetical diablo 3 senario, to 10 because that was the exact number of people that were involved this weekend when I ran into this exact problem
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]