Diablo® III

Diablo 3 LAN (not an offline mode QQ)

86 Human Rogue
8625
Posts: 2,170
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.


hm, that is a valid point
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,700
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?


Okay so maybe I misunderstood. Do you want to be able to play offline with a single computer being the "server" or do you want to play Online where one computer communicates with Battle.net and the other 3 communicate with your computer.

If it's option one, that defeats Blizzards design of server->client system.

If it's the other option then 3 computer will send data to 1 computer.
That one computer will have to send 3 computers worth of data plus it's own to the battle.net servers then receive a response. The data will be the same size as if 4 computers sent that data individually through a switch.

The problem with your network congestion is most likely your hardware/ISP. Blizzard will not be changing the server->client setup so no matter which route that data gets to Blizzard, it will be the same size and result in the same bandwidth usage.
Reply Quote
86 Human Rogue
8625
Posts: 2,170
Okay so maybe I misunderstood. Do you want to be able to play offline with a single computer being the "server" or do you want to play Online where one computer communicates with Battle.net and the other 3 communicate with your computer.

If it's option one, that defeats Blizzards design of server->client system.

If it's the other option then 3 computer will send data to 1 computer.
That one computer will have to send 3 computers worth of data plus it's own to the battle.net servers then receive a response. The data will be the same size as if 4 computers sent that data individually through a switch.

The problem with your network congestion is most likely your hardware/ISP. Blizzard will not be changing the server->client setup so no matter which route that data gets to Blizzard, it will be the same size and result in the same bandwidth usage.


It's the second option (which should be extremely obvious, I say it very specifically like 3 times in the first post, and it's in the title of the thread too), and under the method I outlined, the outgoing data will be almost the exact same size, but the incoming data will be drastically reduced based on the number of people playing in the same game.

Currently, game clients don't distinguish between people playing across the country, and people sitting in the same room playing in the same server. As mentioned before, 4 people would both demand their own set of data from the server, resulting in 4 almost identical sets of data being sent simultaneously. Instead, I'm proposing a method where you can tell a client that you and some buddies are all in the same room and intend to play the same game with each other. Instead of sending one set of the same data four times, it's just sent once, and the first client who gets it sends that data to everyone else who needs it.

This won't result in any noticeable changes for people playing 2-3 in a room, but get like 3 groups of 4 player games going on at the same time and suddenly the difference is huge. Of course, it's very likely that blizzard already has something better in place to handle this exact situation. At this point I'm just running out of things related to this game to talk about
Edited by Anaphylaxis on 11/15/2011 11:07 AM PST
Reply Quote
If you couldn't have 10 (or 4 or whatever you're claiming) people running connections through your internet you either have:

A) A !@#$ty internet connection
B) Someone on your LAN has a virus screwing crap up.

That's all.

I could easily run 10 people playing D3 on my crappy 25meg down 1.5meg up connection without worry.

Games take up minor networking traffic currently that's how they're designed.
Otherwise the internet would be broken by now.
Reply Quote
If it's the other option then 3 computer will send data to 1 computer.
That one computer will have to send 3 computers worth of data plus it's own to the battle.net servers then receive a response. The data will be the same size as if 4 computers sent that data individually through a switch.
It would only be the same size if the local computer was just acting as a gateway. If you put some brains into it you can remove some of the traffic. Take character movement for example. There is no need for the server to send four copies of each person's movement when it could send one copy to the local machine and have it duplicate that information out. That's 1/4th the data being sent in that case.

The problem though is in how much actual overlap there is in the data and how much you would gain VS the amount of work for what is probably more of an edge-case. (How many people really do LAN games as a percentage of the total playerbase?)
Reply Quote
86 Human Rogue
8625
Posts: 2,170
If you couldn't have 10 (or 4 or whatever you're claiming) people running connections through your internet you either have:

A) A !@#$ty internet connection
B) Someone on your LAN has a virus screwing crap up.

That's all.

I could easily run 10 people playing D3 on my crappy 25meg down 1.5meg up connection without worry.

Games take up minor networking traffic currently that's how they're designed.
Otherwise the internet would be broken by now.


Oh no, we shouldn't optimize anything because if there's any problems, that guy just has !@#$ty internet and needs to buy better speeds. Screw that guy and his slow speeds, he can suffer while we do nothing to trim potential bandwidth bloat.

Blizzard FAQ
Q - I run into massive lag issues when playing with lots of friends at my house, can I fix this?
A - wow you must have %^-*ty internet, buy some better internet noob, gtfo our game

Edit - and for clarification, the problems we ran into were with 10 people trying to play an online only game with each other. I drew parallels between this situation which happened exactly as described less than a week ago, and a hypothetical one involving multiple groups of 4 people playing diablo 3 together. I thought that was pretty clear in the original post.
Edited by Anaphylaxis on 11/15/2011 11:05 AM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 685
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.


Huh? I was under the impression that each "game map" is unique, but not unique for each player in that game. Any citation to support your claim?
Reply Quote
Oh no, we shouldn't optimize anything because if there's any problems, that guy just has !@#$ty internet and needs to buy better speeds. Screw that guy and his slow speeds, he can suffer while we do nothing to trim potential bandwidth bloat.
You're saying a lot of words here you don't understand from a networking perspective

Edit - and for clarification, the problems we ran into were with 10 people trying to play an online only game with each other. I drew parallels between this situation which happened exactly as described less than a week ago, and a hypothetical one involving multiple groups of 4 people playing diablo 3 together. I thought that was pretty clear in the original post.
People play games like LoL at internet cafe's all the time.
They don't seem to have any issues.
It pretty much boils down to there was an issue with something involving either your hardware or your connection.

Your random solution of using 1 person on the LAN as a gateway presents far more problems then the current situation.
Reply Quote
86 Human Rogue
8625
Posts: 2,170
You're saying a lot of words here you don't understand from a networking perspective

assuming you have any knowledge about my programming and networking background at all, are you suggesting that it is good practice for programmers to only put minimal effort into optimization because gamers with subpar system specs just don't deserve to play their game?

Let me guess, you go to devry or collins and now you think you're going to be the next gabe newell or something?

People play games like LoL at internet cafe's all the time.
They don't seem to have any issues.
It pretty much boils down to there was an issue with something involving either your hardware or your connection.

Your random solution of using 1 person on the LAN as a gateway presents far more problems then the current situation.

problems, really? Well, name two. I know you are operating under the assumption that I don't even know what a keyboard is, let alone how to network, but humor me. Explain to me what some of these problem are, otherwise I'm going to assume you're just spouting off empty noise
Reply Quote
Posts: 337
Solutions

1) Get better internet, lots of service providers offer more powerful internet for just $10.
2) Everyone stay home, get on vent, and play from your house.
Reply Quote
86 Human Rogue
8625
Posts: 2,170
Solutions

1) Get better internet, lots of service providers offer more powerful internet for just $10.
2) Everyone stay home, get on vent, and play from your house.


1) We're already using the comcast "blast" (omg look it's so awesome we named it blast) package which runs around 20mbps. It's already more expensive than we're completely comfortable with, especially since the next step up in comcast's internet package is a pretty hefty one
2) you are completely missing the point of a social lan party
Reply Quote
11/15/2011 11:03 AMPosted by Gramin
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.


Huh? I was under the impression that each "game map" is unique, but not unique for each player in that game. Any citation to support your claim?

Not the map, the data being sent. If I'm in the forgotten highway and your in the cathedral we are both getting different sets of data even though we are in the same game and on the same overall map. The data we get is unique to our location in the world. If I then joined you in your location I would see the same thing you do and get the same data.

The question is how close would I have to be for it to actually be identical data? Do I just need to be in the same 'zone' or do I have to be in the same area of the zone? Or do I have to be actually standing on top of you? (My bet is for the middle option.)
Reply Quote
86 Human Rogue
8625
Posts: 2,170
Not the map, the data being sent. If I'm in the forgotten highway and your in the cathedral we are both getting different sets of data even though we are in the same game and on the same overall map. The data we get is unique to our location in the world. If I then joined you in your location I would see the same thing you do and get the same data.

The question is how close would I have to be for it to actually be identical data? Do I just need to be in the same 'zone' or do I have to be in the same area of the zone? Or do I have to be actually standing on top of you? (My bet is for the middle option.)


yeah, this is actually a good point. If players are wandering off in different directions ("but why would they ever do that?" no, it's a massive online game, someone's going to do it) it trims down the benefit quite a bit, since they'd be suddenly needing a different set of map data, monster data, items drops, and so on.
Reply Quote
85 Draenei Priest
4855
Posts: 985
You're just penny pinching at this point because diablo 3s bandwidth usage is already pretty low. Yes theoretically you could shave off some extra kbps for this purpose but having 4 players in the same diablo 3 game shouldn't be enough to lag your internet. Even if it did, supposedly diablo 3s client->server architecture designed to have the server verify attacks after they are made and it only handles loot generation and monster spawning, meaning lag wont effect you greatly besides waiting an extra .3-1 seconds for loot to spawn.

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5172/d3betaran20mins2.jpg

(the 331kbps is probably from downloading something at the beginning, the average is probably below 20 kbps because the 22kbps is ramped up from the maximum)
Reply Quote
100 Blood Elf Paladin
9180
Posts: 1,192
I did read the post, having someone HOST the game means they ahve to have access to the codes that are on the server.

the drop codes and the spawn codes and everything like that, meaning there will be hackers who will use that and get their grubby hands on the info and make hacks.


I'm not whats wrong with the internet, you need to learn how the internet works before posting things like that.
Reply Quote
11/15/2011 11:15 AMPosted by Anaphylaxis
You're saying a lot of words here you don't understand from a networking perspective

assuming you have any knowledge about my programming and networking background at all, are you suggesting that it is good practice for programmers to only put minimal effort into optimization because gamers with subpar system specs just don't deserve to play their game?

Let me guess, you go to devry or collins and now you think you're going to be the next gabe newell or something?
I don't know anything to do with your networking background, but lumping in programming in the same sentence pretty much explains all I need to know.

Your suggestion is actually going back in history where people actually acted as hosts and ran games through their own comp.

People play games like LoL at internet cafe's all the time.
They don't seem to have any issues.
It pretty much boils down to there was an issue with something involving either your hardware or your connection.

Your random solution of using 1 person on the LAN as a gateway presents far more problems then the current situation.

problems, really? Well, name two. I know you are operating under the assumption that I don't even know what a keyboard is, let alone how to network, but humor me. Explain to me what some of these problem are, otherwise I'm going to assume you're just spouting off empty noise
There's no point naming two.
The biggest issue is packet loss, or packet deterioration.

Host computer sends:
John goes to 84/83, James goes to 63/82, Jack goes to 31/93, Francisco(had to swap it up) goes to 91/3.
Server recieves:
John goes to 84/83, James goes to 63/82, Jack goes to ... ..., Francisco goes to 91/3.
Then you get into fun loops of re-requesting data from host to server, while the clients behind the host are bouncing around like rabbits not knowing what's going on.

Repeat that millions of times over the internet, that's your problem.
Reply Quote
86 Human Rogue
8625
Posts: 2,170
Host computer sends:
John goes to 84/83, James goes to 63/82, Jack goes to 31/93, Francisco(had to swap it up) goes to 91/3.
Server recieves:
John goes to 84/83, James goes to 63/82, Jack goes to ... ..., Francisco goes to 91/3.
Then you get into fun loops of re-requesting data from host to server, while the clients behind the host are bouncing around like rabbits not knowing what's going on.

Repeat that millions of times over the internet, that's your problem.


see, now I'm confused, because earlier you were trying to impress me with how much more networking knowledge you had than me, but now here you are trying to tell me that diablo 3 uses a transfer control protocol, which is an awful protocol to use for online gaming 9 times out of 10. Seriously? I mean, sure there are the occasional rare exceptions of games that work well over TCP (honestly it's more common to see games that use both TCP and UDP at the same time than just TCP alone, unless it's a turn based game), but diablo 3?

Why don't you go read up on UDP (the procedure games actually use, because it makes freaking sense) and then get back to me on telling me how much you have to teach me?

PS - packet deterioration is a non-issue over a LAN. Something you'd know, if the things you knew came from anywhere else but wikipedia
Edited by Anaphylaxis on 11/15/2011 12:44 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 5,575
another reason why i think friend games and invite only games should have a chooseable higher player cap of the normal gameplay modes (also chooseable mutual hostile type or not)... imo
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,075
You could always pay for better internet service?

But I must admit, making only one person making the connection to the server is not a super terrible idea. Probably still a coding nightmare though, since most assets are stored server side and most attempts to your idea would only result in similar bandwidth usage, not impossible but I don't want the game to be delayed further so I'm gonna have to say it's not necessary.
Edited by Harmless on 11/15/2011 3:19 PM PST
Reply Quote
86 Human Rogue
8625
Posts: 2,170
You could always pay for better internet service?

But I must admit, making only one person making the connection to the server is not a super terrible idea. Probably still a coding nightmare though, since most assets are stored server side and most attempts to your idea would only result in similar bandwidth usage, not impossible but I don't want the game to be delayed further so I'm gonna have to say it's not necessary.


the next step up in our comcast plan jumps the price to 100 per month just for the internet. No thank you.

And the idea here is that the server would recognize that certain players can share certain information. Let's say you're playing a game like tf2 and you need to download a map you haven't played before, and you've got 3 friends in the room who all also need that map. Does it make very much sense for the server to try and funnel 4 copies of that one map through your bandwidth when all 4 of you try and download it at the same time? What would be a much more efficient use of your bandwidth is if only one copy was sent, and as the "host" computer was receiving that information, it was simultaneously copying those information packets and distributing them to the other computers.

Same thing applies for once you're in the game. The server has to tell your client where all the other players are, where they're aiming, who they are, and what they're equipped with. But there are 4 of you, so you need 4 sets of that information. However, that information is the same for all of you, so why is it necessary to pump 4 sets identical data through your connection when one set can be distributed among you just as easily?
Not only would this be a lot easier on the bandwidth usage, but it would cut down on lag as well. The only problem is you'd need a fast reacting protocol for if the host computer hits a lag spike or bluescreens or something, so that another computer on the lan could pick up the slack without too much delay
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)

Reported!

[Close]