|
Hi everyone,
Okay, we've spent some time looking around for how SC2 deals with hosting. Is the hosting system different for matchmaking and custom games? Is it all p2p and if so, how does it work exactly? My friend seems to have his mind set on that all sc2 games are p2p (which of course could be possible, but sounds weird to me).
I remember in the wc3 days, I could easily play matchmaking ladder but I couldn't host AT games or custom games unless I had the right ports opened in order to enable the p2p. So, does that mean that the matchmaking takes place serverside? Also, is this the same at SC2?
Sorry if there's been threads about this, but I couldn't find them. If there are any, please point me in that direction.
As always, thanks in advance.
/Zore
|
I believe StarCraft 2 uses a client-server model, where the servers are hosted by Blizzard. There was a thread about it during the beta.
Edit:
Oh wait, sorry.
It's P2P
|
|
|
If it was p2p, you would be able to easily verify this by running netstat on a windows box. I'm about 99.999% sure it isn't p2p... that would be too large a security threat to players.
Edit:
Not to mention, if games were played p2p, it would become much easier to perform packet injection via a router.
I looked at R1CH's post that was linked (only the first post). He doesn't really mention how he drew the conclusion that games are p2p. I'm not saying he's wrong, but some more supporting info would be nice.
|
It's not P2P, hence why you don't have to forward any ports on your router.
|
R1CH says it is routed through a Blizzard server, as both players send their data to it and synch up. Not P2P.
|
Okay, thanks.
But if it's routed... where is the actual server hosted? By routed, is that the same as hosted?
|
On August 18 2010 09:31 Whakkah wrote:
Okay, thanks.
But if it's routed... where is the actual server hosted? By routed, is that the same as hosted?
There's a server(s) for every region, US hosted on US, SEAsia in singapore, etc
|
On August 18 2010 09:43 deth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2010 09:31 Whakkah wrote:
Okay, thanks.
But if it's routed... where is the actual server hosted? By routed, is that the same as hosted? There's a server(s) for every region, US hosted on US, SEAsia in singapore, etc
So then it is ultimately remotely hosted? Either way, is there a source for this?
|
I am pretty sure there is rather critical server traffic going on in games of SC2, otherwise a server emulator or "LAN hack" would be a lot easier to do (and likely be available already I'd guess).
As far as I heard (this is not recent information though), it is client-server, since all traffic is routed through the server before going to the opponent.
Edit: I was wondering the difference (or if there was a difference) between server hosted/client-server and server-routed, but I just realized it I think.
As far as I understand, the server is just acting as a dummy passing along information (like a router/switch/hub), which adds security to the users.
No additional functionality is done through the server though, which sucks. You'd think there'd be nothing to it when it comes to adding anti-disconnect functionality though. That's the one thing I'm still a bit confused on.
|
it's not p2p or a private server would have been already released.
|
It's not direct P2P. Everything gets sent through battle.net.
|
It is P2P but the connection goes through battle.net as the middle man. You never connect directly to the other person. All data gets "routed" through battle.net. The game is never hosted by battle.net. Battle.net has no say in the game state or which clients get what data.
It's unfortunate they didn't go for a more dedicated server style of hosting that made maphacks/dischacks impossible... but that's just the way it is.
I believe the reason it was designed like this was to get around the port forwarding problems people had in BW/WC3.
|
p2pbecause bnet 2.0 is revolutionary... oh wait
well its not 100% p2p but its more of a p2p2b but either way its not ideal
|
On August 18 2010 16:19 vek wrote:
It is P2P but the connection goes through battle.net as the middle man. You never connect directly to the other person. All data gets "routed" through battle.net. The game is never hosted by battle.net. Battle.net has no say in the game state or which clients get what data.
It's unfortunate they didn't go for a more dedicated server style of hosting that made maphacks/dischacks impossible... but that's just the way it is.
I believe the reason it was designed like this was to get around the port forwarding problems people had in BW/WC3.
what you said is just exact opposite to P2P peer to peer is where there is no server in between.
I will check when i get back from work how exactly the things are. And its about time till SC2 is reverse engineer and there is bnet2.0 emulators out.
|
On August 18 2010 16:48 AcOrP wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2010 16:19 vek wrote:
It is P2P but the connection goes through battle.net as the middle man. You never connect directly to the other person. All data gets "routed" through battle.net. The game is never hosted by battle.net. Battle.net has no say in the game state or which clients get what data.
It's unfortunate they didn't go for a more dedicated server style of hosting that made maphacks/dischacks impossible... but that's just the way it is.
I believe the reason it was designed like this was to get around the port forwarding problems people had in BW/WC3. what you said is just exact opposite to P2P peer to peer is where there is no server in between. I will check when i get back from work how exactly the things are. And its about time till SC2 is reverse engineer and there is bnet2.0 emulators out.
How is it the opposite? There is still no "server" in the current set up. Data just gets sent from client1 -> battle.net -> client2. There is no game state on battle.net, the authoritative game state exists on the clients which is exactly how P2P networked games work.
The only difference from "pure" P2P is that there is a 3rd party (battle.net) sitting between all of the connected clients passing the messages along.
|
|
|
I suppose routed P2P is a reasonable way to describe it.
If you look at it purely from an architecture point of view then no, it is not P2P. However if you look at how the data flows between the clients and the fact there is no central server with a running game state it works the same way P2P works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
