Diablo® III

Diablo 3 LAN (not an offline mode QQ)

Posts: 4,968
Edited for spam.
Edited by Jacka on 1/4/2012 1:05 PM PST
Reply Quote
86 Human Rogue
8625
Posts: 2,170
11/22/2011 11:28 AMPosted by Jacka
Bro... What you are asking for is the old system. They're not going to downgrade their setup. You can keep denying it all you want, it doesn't change that it's the same thing they used to have... Kind of like saying a Rogue on Alliance is different than a Rogue on Horde.


give me some details of how their old system worked. I'd love to see if you're just blowing smoke.
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,968
Edited for spam.
Edited by Jacka on 1/4/2012 1:06 PM PST
Reply Quote
86 Human Rogue
8625
Posts: 2,170
11/22/2011 11:41 AMPosted by Jacka
Player hosts game, other players connect to the player who hosted the game (they are logged into Battle.net, but not connecting to a Battle.net server), player who hosted the game acts as Battle.net server, relays information, etc...<br /><br />Plus this was in Diablo 2, it was called "Open Battle.net." Can't have it on Closed because people used to host modded versions of Diablo 2 on Open Battle.net and everybody who joined would be playing the hosts modded version of the game even if they had the original install of Diablo.


my idea is close to this, but not exactly what you're thinking the old system was. The player isn't hosting anything, the server still hosts. One client only pretends to host in that other clients on the network go to that client for their information.

Think of it like this, 4 people on the same network are all directly connected to battle.net, but this connection is only for the purposes of verifying versions and the usual security. Instead of battle.net giving all 4 people 4 redundant data sets for the map, enemy placement, item drops, etc. only one player gets that data (cutting incoming data by a fourth) and the other computers on the network get that data from the "pretend host".

The host computer is not actually hosting anything, merely relaying information. It has zero control over the information going out, and the computers on the network all send information directly back to battle.net without going through the host. Any attempt by the host to host a modded server would immediately be caught by battle.net security. Any attempt to manipulate data going out to other computers on the network would be detected once those players communicated with battle.net and it noticed something not adding up.

The old system was full of loopholes, and I can see how you'd see certain similarities between that one and this one, but the one I'm proposing is only for incoming data distribution
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,968
Edited for spam.
Edited by Jacka on 1/4/2012 1:06 PM PST
Reply Quote
86 Human Rogue
8625
Posts: 2,170
11/22/2011 11:53 AMPosted by Jacka
Having the company I paid to play a game host the servers for me instead of making me host my own server sounds like progress to me...<br /><br />To play LAN the host needs to have the full game information available so he can relay it to everybody who's connected, so people can send modded files to their clients and we can end up with White Rings, Ith Bows and Oculus Rings again...


but it's not actually a LAN, it only behaves similarly in some regards. Everyone still communicates with battle.net, everyone still uses their own client which battle.net checks. The only difference is that if anyone is using information which is the same for all people in the game, battle.net recognizes that all those people are networked together and can share that data instead of all requiring their own version.
Reply Quote
Posts: 517
it seems that you would have to have one powerhouse of a computer to relay the info out to the other three people and to keep it real time, also i don't see how there is a difference in amount of info comming into the one household, if it is split to 4 different computers, or all of the info given into one and relayed to the others.

Are you specifying that you want your computer to act as a router as well?
Or do you want your server to be a host?
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,265
this feature would end up being most used by botters, since each bot would now get their own loot instead of fighting over it, it's more effective for bots to be in the same game, this feature would just reduce a bot's latency and reduce their detect-ability.

since a lot of us have been playing skyrim, imagine pit-pocketing a person, a guard sees you, but you bribed him so he'll let you off the hook. The guard being the host of the LAN connection, the host can simply "not see" any bots to be found.
Reply Quote
86 Human Rogue
8625
Posts: 2,170
11/22/2011 12:18 PMPosted by Rubexcube
it seems that you would have to have one powerhouse of a computer to relay the info out to the other three people and to keep it real time, also i don't see how there is a difference in amount of info comming into the one household, if it is split to 4 different computers, or all of the info given into one and relayed to the others.


you really don't need that much of a powerhouse. Also, the difference would be pretty noticeable depending on how many people are on the same connection.
Instead of 4 people needing 4 sets of the same data, the server sends one set. One set of that data comes through your router, hits the "pretend host", and that computer makes 3 additional copies of those packets as they come and divides them up. It's a fourth of the incoming information if the server were to just send 4 sets of data simultaneously to all 4 people, even though the data is identical.
Reply Quote
Posts: 517
ahh i kinda get what your saying. Well my comp would struggle to do that. probably have less lag with a bandwith issue!

/DellCraptop for teh win
Reply Quote
Posts: 459
OP did you even read my post?

I posted to put an end to this silly discussion and help you understand that you need not worry about the D3 netcode as it will be fine.

Reducing data flow is common practice in writing netcode and it's probably been done for the most part. I imagined your idea and how I would code it, I would use multicast. Google multicast. Blizzard would already be multicasting some stuff that improves their server end but they may not of considered your end. Blizzard would of put a lot of thought and design in their netcode and this will not change easily.

It was not an easy choice for them to make it online only and they've thought about this a lot trust me.

if you have 20Mbps that's obviously download, is you're upload much lower? It's your upload that gets you on lans and there's nothing blizzard can do about that.

This shouldn't be a topic about getting Blizzard to change their netcode that's just trolling. It should be a topic helping you get your lan working for you. Which is more than possible with a very average internet connection. I plan on lanning on release 4 players and expect no issues. I'm experienced with this stuff and experience helps me to identify problems and solve them.
Reply Quote
Posts: 672
The server handles a lot of stuff not in the client. Like monster AIs and remember that not everyone will always be together. It would create a lot of problems to have one "master" who is a "slave" of the server.
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]