P2P (Peer To Peer) And why it isn't what you seem to think it is.

2009-11-13 13:45:03

#1

Miggle: FUCK UBISOFT; +1,411|6999|FUCK UBISOFT

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/44874/200px-P2P-network.svg.png

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/44874/200px-Server-based-network.svg.png

Guess which one is P2P.

Hint, it's the one on the left.

Unfortunately, most of you probably don't understand that. With all of the recent talk of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 2 (electric boogaloo) many people, not just on this forum, have been whining about its peer to peer system. Sure Modern Warfare doesn't use dedicated servers, and sure, that sucks, but it also doesn't use P2P.

If you look at the above diagrams, you should see that the image on the right has everybody getting their data from one computer, lets call him the host. Ping is the time in milliseconds it takes for you to send and receive data to and from the host. You're not going to have any of that on a P2P network, as there is no host. If you see ping, you aren't using P2P.

If any of you have ever used torrents (yeah, I know you have) even Limewire, you're not dealing with hosts or servers, everybody is sharing what they have, you're getting pieces from multiple seeders, while at the same time giving pieces to leechers. This works for torrents, but I can't imagine how this could possibly work in a real time video game, where information is constantly changing.

I really hope that you read this, because it's annoying as hell reading all of you mixing this up. Think about when people think CPU means computer.

TL;DR, Do not call XBL, PSN, MW2 or anything related to games (other than piracy) P2P.

Really.

2009-11-13 13:56:34

#2

Scratch[USA]: Member; +105|6805

I think you are wrong

2009-11-13 13:57:32

#3

Red Forman: Banned; +402|5658

/popcorn

2009-11-13 14:10:55

#4

SplinterStrike: Roamer; +250|6669|Eskimo land. AKA Canada.

Well, it was informative. Thanks Miggle.

2009-11-13 14:11:09

#5

Miggle: FUCK UBISOFT; +1,411|6999|FUCK UBISOFT

SplinterStrike wrote:
Well, it was informative. Thanks Miggle.

No problem.

2009-11-13 15:31:55

#6

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6046|Catherine Black

Yeah, CoD4 is client/host, MW2 is also client/host, the only difference being the host is a player, rather than a dedicated server.

Thanks for this.

2009-11-13 17:40:47

#7

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6410|what

It's still p2p in the fact that you connect to the host who is a peer and not a dedicated server.

Describing this:

https://img407.imageshack.us/img407/3486/200pxserverbasednetwork.png

As anything other than p2p does not work because the host is not a stand alone do nothing but interpret/send packet data from and to each user. They are also in the game, sending their own packet data, hence another peer.

2009-11-13 18:26:52

#8

Miggle: FUCK UBISOFT; +1,411|6999|FUCK UBISOFT

AussieReaper wrote:
It's still p2p in the fact that you connect to the host who is a peer and not a dedicated server.

Describing this:

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/3486 … etwork.png

As anything other than p2p does not work because the host is not a stand alone do nothing but interpret/send packet data from and to each user. They are also in the game, sending their own packet data, hence another peer.

that's not what peer to peer means Aussie.

2009-11-13 18:54:32

#9

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6410|what

Miggle wrote:
that's not what peer to peer means Aussie.

My point is that what you seem to think it is is not entirely true either. You're not connected to a dedicated host because they are not dedicated to the connections they control - they are also sending their own packet data as they play the game.

2009-11-13 19:13:42

#10

Lucien: Fantasma Parastasie; +1,451|6911

Oh boy, semantics

If there isn't a term for "one player hosts the game but also joins it so there is no dedicated server but it also isn't fully peer to peer", then using P2P is good enough

2009-11-13 19:31:00

#11

Miggle: FUCK UBISOFT; +1,411|6999|FUCK UBISOFT

AussieReaper wrote:
Miggle wrote:
that's not what peer to peer means Aussie.
My point is that what you seem to think it is is not entirely true either. You're not connected to a dedicated host because they are not dedicated to the connections they control - they are also sending their own packet data as they play the game.

Server doesn't mean dedicated... It still completely uses a server system.

Lucien wrote:
Oh boy, semantics

If there isn't a term for "one player hosts the game but also joins it so there is no dedicated server but it also isn't fully peer to peer", then using P2P is good enough

There is a term for it, a server.

It is nothing like P2P, that's like calling MW2 a board game because it's an FPS, but there's no name for its specific type of FPS, so using the name of a completely different type of game is good enough.

EDIT: I really didn't realize people could argue over facts like this.

Last edited by Miggle (2009-11-13 19:31:50)

2009-11-13 19:35:39

#12

Lucien: Fantasma Parastasie; +1,451|6911

A server doesn't describe "one player hosts the game but also joins it himself". A server can be any of dozens of different kinds of servers.
MW2 is an FPS. So people call it an FPS. They don't call it a boardgame because it isn't a boardgame in any way whatsoever. MW2's system doesn't have a term that describes it and it only so people use the next best word which is P2P.

2009-11-13 19:37:55

#13

Miggle: FUCK UBISOFT; +1,411|6999|FUCK UBISOFT

Lucien wrote:
A server doesn't describe "one player hosts the game but also joins it himself". A server can be any of dozens of different kinds of servers.
MW2 is an FPS. So people call it an FPS. They don't call it a boardgame because it isn't a boardgame in any way whatsoever. MW2's system doesn't have a term that describes it and it only so people use the next best word which is P2P.

P2P doesn't describe what MW2 has in any way whatsoever.

The player is a server, are you really trying to debate that? That's what it is.

2009-11-13 19:39:01