Being held back

[Durzel]

One of the things that irks me the most about playing multiplayer online games with my close circle of friends is "what could've been".

Like, imagining how amazing a game like GTA would be if it was massively multiplayer, how great realtime combat would be in a MMO setting. All of this, for the most part, is held back by one common denominator - modemers. I'm convinced that the reason programmers have to dedicate so much resources to "decent" multiplayer code is because of draconian bandwidth restrictions brought about by pikey modemers.

In an age of 3Ghz PCs with 128Mb graphics cards, games still end up having to pander to the lowest common denominator, the DX2-66 of the internet connectivity World, namely Jimmy Joe and his 56k "3kb/sec" shitty modem.

(I was going to ramble on for ages, but I've since got bored and need coffee)

The Government should initiate some kind of scheme to rid the UK of modems altogether, except in critical remote access situations, etc. People should either end up having to buy broadband/DSL (maybe ISDN) to play 21st Century multiplayer games. If they don't, or can't afford to, tough!

 

[old.D0LLySh33p]

But then it's the age old problem of saying that the UK is shite at online games due to the lack of cheap and reliable broadband.

(/me spouts propaganda why Sweden are the best at CS)

 

[Durzel]

Hmm I dunno.. broadband and DSL seem cheap to me, £25-£40 a month isn't unreasonable to me at all given I ended up spending £600 a quarter in the pre-0800 ISDN dialup days.

Reliability I suppose is down to each provider.

Ultimately the point I'm trying to make is that I'm a firm believer that the MP aspect of games would be enriched ten fold by developers having access to a reasonable (e.g. 15kb/sec ?) amount of bandwidth.

 

[Lester]

Isn't it restrictions like that that make games programmers so good?

Necessity is the mother of cliches and all that.

 

[Will]

I'm not sure about games removing modem support, at least until everyone has access to broadband. I think gaming is one of the driving factors behind the uptake of broadband, and once the country hits a decent level of uptake, maybe then it can be done.

Modemers are finding it harder and harder to play games. Operation Flashpoint is getting unplayable by 56k, Battlefield 1942 certainly isn't what I would do with my evening if I was on dialup.

Though optimised netcode is still a gaming requirement. I think the client-side prediction in HL is the reason why the game is still continuing in its various mods. And BF1942 had some very shoddy netcode going on in the 1.0 and 1.1 versions, where CQB on broadband was a joke due to missing bullets and the amount you had to lead your target.

Nothing is ever going to please everyone, but modems are getting squeezed out anyway. I think the coders feel the same way as you do, Durz.

 

[Durzel]

Originally posted by Lester
Isn't it restrictions like that that make games programmers so good?

Necessity is the mother of cliches and all that.

That's definitely true to a degree, but I imagine (and whilst I'm not a games programmer I have a similar restriction when designing other Internet-dependant software/web systems at work) the actual restriction is marginally more constricting than it is beneficial - in terms of forcing developers to write highly-optimised code.

Unfortunately, as things stand, the situation is only going to get worse or - as Will has pointed out - modemers will surreptitiously be weeded out by the crop of new games.

Which is "a good thing" imo.

Originally posted by Will
Though optimised netcode is still a gaming requirement. I think the client-side prediction in HL is the reason why the game is still continuing in its various mods.

Ultimately though, client side prediction is a necessity brought about because of bandwidth limitations. It simply isnt possible in the current climate to send/receive every bit of crucial data to the client, so the developers have to trust the closed client with some of the work (the bare minimum usually, typically just non-essential stuff like sound processing, etc)

 

[Wij]

You meant Will not Wij.

 

[Durzel]

I should qualify the above by saying that client-side work is pretty much a necessity regardless of the amount of bandwidth available. It makes no sense for the server to be tasked when telling the client when (exactly) it should hear a gunshot, or bullet holes on a texture, etc.

I generally think the existing implementations of client-side prediction, etc work well.. but that doesn't alter the fact that it is pretty likely that multiplayer doesn't exist in GTA3 for example simply because of client/server bandwidth limitations.

 

[Durzel]

Originally posted by Wij
You meant Will not Wij.

Huh??

 

[xane]

Bandwidth only really affects the packet size, which basically translates into how many "avatars" (players and their objects) can be seen at once. The prediction code is intended to reduce the avatar count, otherwise we'd have to track every bullet and that would lag even the fastest connection, whatever you do you'll always have some client side calculations.

For the most part, any regular FPS with a reasonable number of avatars can fit easily within the confines of a modem, games like Battlefield 1942 were really starting to stretch the limit.

The only FPS MMOG to my knowledge was World War II Online, even so that had limits with code that reduced visible avatars when it got too crowded, this made some big battles almost unplayable as the decision code was never perfect, and it completely ruled out long distance weaponry.

I like the solution in Battlefield 1942, you define your connection type and then get limited to certain servers with lower player limits, there is a monitor built in that kicks anyone lagging so if you try and fake your connection it gets spotted quickly, unfortunately not all servers have this switched on and often lag is down to the server not your connection, creating false positives.

Any game can have this feature, and I see it fast becoming the normal, so your dreams may one day come true, i.e. you can play on a DSL-only server while sulking you can't play on the T3-only server with your mates because you're just a "sucky subbie liner"

The one restriction you missed is the graphics, I forsee one day video cards with a common graphics language (DirectX.NET ? anyone) being able to map from server-side instructions directly.

 

[Gumbo]

I'm glad you included ISDNers grudgingly at the end of your initial post Durzel, as it's the best I can manage at present, though I would point out that ISDN is still more expensive than Broadband at the moment.

One thing which I have pointed out before and no doubt will again, is the amount of problems a lot of cable customers are getting at the moment, to the point some of [G]'s members are unable to play in the evenings when most gaming occurs. If all new games are only available to Broadband users in the future, unless there is a lot of infrastructure upgrading which frankly we're not seeing enough of, the UK will become an online gaming wasteland.

A year ago I had barely heard of people having the current overloading problems with cable, and now I'm hearing of new people with unplayable pings all the time. It will be interesting to see, in 6 months time, how many cable customers are left who can play online games. I have no idea if ADSL has the same restrictions and will eventually go the same way, maybe a techie dood can help with that question, but frankly, for gaming I'm kind of glad I'm on ISDN at present, it just sucks for those big downloads.

 

[~Lazarus~]

Originally posted by Durzel
One of the things that irks me the most about playing multiplayer online games with my close circle of friends is "what could've been".

Like, imagining how amazing a game like GTA would be if it was massively multiplayer, how great realtime combat would be in a MMO setting. All of this, for the most part, is held back by one common denominator - modemers. I'm convinced that the reason programmers have to dedicate so much resources to "decent" multiplayer code is because of draconian bandwidth restrictions brought about by pikey modemers.

In an age of 3Ghz PCs with 128Mb graphics cards, games still end up having to pander to the lowest common denominator, the DX2-66 of the internet connectivity World, namely Jimmy Joe and his 56k "3kb/sec" shitty modem.

(I was going to ramble on for ages, but I've since got bored and need coffee)

The Government should initiate some kind of scheme to rid the UK of modems altogether, except in critical remote access situations, etc. People should either end up having to buy broadband/DSL (maybe ISDN) to play 21st Century multiplayer games. If they don't, or can't afford to, tough!

Wot a Crock!!!

Youre spouting off as if cable / ADSL is available to every person who wishes to connect to the WWW.

Wake up and smell the roses. BT (and other telecommunications companies) dont give a crap as long they have a good coverage in certain areas.

Somefolk CANNOT get Broadband. At all.

The only option is 56k.

by the way - you did now that modemers dont use as much resource on the servers as cablers. Or is this just a cut and paste job from your favourite comic book ?

 

[gremlin]

* marks durzel's original post as "-1: Flamebait"

 

[Tom]

How would you draw a distinction between adsl users and modemers, and adsl users connecting from the UK to servers in, say, the US?

 

[Will]

Thats the difference between latency and bandwidth Tom...though that is starting to get into the more complex "which of the two is more important?" debate. As Gumbo said, his ISDN pings better than a lot of cable players (though not me), as while he has less bandwidth, his latency is better than a lot of the modemers.

ADSL could, and indeed, used to, have the same problems as you mention, Gumbo. BT upgraded its gateways (I may be misremembering stuff here, someone will pull me up if I am) and that solved quite a few problems ADSL was having at the time. Both cable modems and ADSL have a contention ratio, you share your bandwidth with other people, hence the problems some people have of an evening with increased ping and packet loss.

 

[Xtro]

Never had much of a prob with my Telewest cable connect til this week - pings of 200-300 on MOHAA....um no ta.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Tom[SHOTTEH]
How would you draw a distinction between adsl users and modemers, and adsl users connecting from the UK to servers in, say, the US?

The issue is bandwidth, not ping.

Ping (response time) is not the problem, if you have a high ping, either from being on a modem or being too many hops away, the general effect is on you only.

Bandwidth is lower for modems, and thus the packet size is smaller, so less information can be passed in one go, consequently games are restricted to the smallest packet size, this generally translates as a smaller number of "avatars" (objects).

Durzels point is that large multiplayer games, with 64+ players, are not commercially available due to bandwidth restrictions having to accomodate the modem market, additionally tricky and often unreliable code is needed to reduce the number of "avatars" and rely on client-side calculations, this opens up lag and hacking of various forms.

Bandwidth is constant whatever the distance, although excessive distance may timeout and dropped packets become frequent.

 

[old.D0LLySh33p]

Quoted from a reliable source:

"Sources have informed BW staff that public servers will act at maximum efficiency if a new dial-up is enabled for subscribers. This 'Dynamic and masterful new gui operational outlook does bloody jesus' or 'DAMNGOODBJ' will incorporate what appears to be cutting edge technology.

This will involve not just 2 cans and a piece of string, but the can at the BW end will be made of a prime alloy commonly known as 'BULLSHIT'...."

Sorry to post crap...

I still feel fuzzy from flu and hayfever

 

[throdgrain]

Actually this is probably the most interesting thread Ive read on the general forum in ages.
I wish they would make games that every one could play , including modemers. I have isdn. They dont do cable in my area for some odd reason involving eurobell/ Telewest. I could get adsl, but they want to charge me £250 to change from isdn to adsl, a price Im not willing to pay atm :/
Also I worry that the adsl will not handle 2 pc's playing online games similtaneously, as isdn does..

 

[Will]

Originally posted by throdgrain
They dont do cable in my area for some odd reason involving eurobell/ Telewest.

Eurobell network...piece of shite...*grumble*

 

[old.D0LLySh33p]

thoddy ADSL should have no problems coping with pc sharing.

Some mates who live off campus commonly play CS together 3-4 of em at once with ADSL and ping in at around 30-60.

 

[Xtro]

Is anyone else on Telewest cable having problems lately?

I know my exchange had problems this week (connect's been going to pot most of this week) and since service has been supposedly resumed my ping is a joke.

I'll wait til Monday then ring the beloved Tech Support (JOY!).

 

[Will]

I work for them Xtro...do tell and I'll see what I can do. PM might be better.

 

[old.D0LLySh33p]

Originally posted by Xtro
I'll wait til Monday then ring the beloved Tech Support (JOY!).

Ouch... doesn't that cost like... several arms and legs and breasts?

 

[Will]

Originally posted by old.D0LLySh33p
Ouch... doesn't that cost like... several arms and legs and breasts?

Its an 0845 number, so no, its a local call.

You are thinking of dial-up tech support which is premium rate

 

[Furr]

Modemers suck

nuff said

 

[Durzel]

Re: Re: Being held back

Originally posted by ~Lazarus~
Wot a Crock!!!

Youre spouting off as if cable / ADSL is available to every person who wishes to connect to the WWW.

Wake up and smell the roses. BT (and other telecommunications companies) dont give a crap as long they have a good coverage in certain areas.

Somefolk CANNOT get Broadband. At all.

The only option is 56k.

by the way - you did now that modemers dont use as much resource on the servers as cablers. Or is this just a cut and paste job from your favourite comic book ?

I think you're assuming I'm a nice person when it comes to things like this. I'm under no illusions that not everyone can get broadband/DSL. I've never asserted that they could. I was fully aware of that fact when I made the original post.

Y'know, if someone can't get broadband or DSL, and refuses to upgrade to ISDN (or can't even get that) well then I'm sorry but they should be excluded, or at the very least end up having to play on "throughput challenged" servers for modemers only, while the rest of us can enjoy games with bags of multiplayer content.

The point Im trying to make is that whilst it is "lovely and fluffy" that those with a 28.8k modem can play alongside those on a DSL/cable connection - its ultimately counterproductive, and it is becoming more and more obvious that bandwidth limitations are a very real obstacle to expansive multiplayer (not MMO) content.

MMOs are somewhat different in most cases because they are ground-up written and engineered (the way the games themselves work) to use very little bandwidth, a "trickle" bandwidth if you will.

Ultimately, if we're ever going to see single player style content in a MMO environment, we're going to have to sacrifice those that aren't able to deal with all the content that has to be sent/received. We're not going to see MMO versions of GTA, etc until this happens - and that game, as one example, is crying out for it.

And whether you can get broadband/DSL/ISDN or not, this step has to be made.

 

[old.D0LLySh33p]

Originally posted by Will.
Its an 0845 number, so no, its a local call.

You are thinking of dial-up tech support which is premium rate

So why then do they charge me £1 a minute when I phone you?

Number is local too it begins with 0891...

Doh.

 

[Durzel]

Just wanted to touch on a couple of things.

Latency is not the issue, bandwidth is
The response time for given clients is entirely a client side disadvantage, although arguably there is some server work involved in challenge/response and dealing with timeouts on packets, etc. If everyone were able to receive, say, 20kb/sec then content wise it wouldn't matter whether one players ping time was 15ms, and the other 600ms. Sure it would mean that the latter player would have problems fragging, or whatever, but thats entirely a client-side/ISP problem and not a limitation that developers really have to worry about.

Packet redundancy
If you've got more bandwidth to play with, packet loss becomes less of an issue - or rather, it can be made to be less of an issue. If you have free bandwidth to spare then theres nothing stopping developers adopting a similar approach to RAID 5, where extra data is used to store parity information to facilitate in the rebuild of data on the main stream. In practical terms, if you were playing a game and had a system similar to this it wouldn't matter a great deal if you dropped a packet since the parity information would provide the necessary data that you lost. This would effectively make mild/moderate packet loss a non-issue.

Packet loss is a very real problem on multiplayer games for both modemers and DSL'rs alike purely because every single bit of data is vitally important. There is little/no wastage in the current games, purely because there is little/no room to play with (simply from having to cater for the lowest common denominator - modemers).

Field of Effect
In all multiplayer games that involve client-side prediction, there is essentially a spherical "field of effect" (assuming x,y,z) surrounding the player. This is to say the player can navigate to any point within this sphere between packet updates from the server. This is essentially how client-side prediction works - entities, movements, etc are transmitted to the client based on where he/she could feasibly end up being between one update, and the next. Movements are similar, wherein a player is fed another avatars' trajectory and velocity and the client animates the avatar based on this data (this produces the warping effect with lag, when an avatar turns out to not have travelled as far as the client animation predicted).

The problem with low bandwidth in situations like this is two-fold, firstly it inherently limits the field of effect to a manageable size. In an imaginary multiplayer GTA3, as the player travelled faster nd faster (e.g. in a car), their field of effect would expand accordingly, since packet update time is a constant and the point the player could potentially be at would be further. If, for example, you were playing GTA3 and somewhere on the map someone had crashed a car, or run over a pedestrian, if you were travelling at a high enough velocity you would have to know about this well in advance of actually reaching it. This is magnified exponentially with the number of people playing.

If you are only able to process 3kb/sec of data, and the field of effect defined by the players velocity requires you to know about 6kb/sec of essential data (player, pedestrian and vehicle locations - all x,y,z AND individual azimuths (since a car can be upside down), etc) - then what can you do? You can't not send the modemer the data since it invalidates the logic of the game. The game must always present the same data to everyone. You can't have people on broadband seeing cars, etc that modemers do not, it violates the basic tenet of multiplayer gaming.

I've waffled, sorry. Flame on!

 

[Xtro]

Originally posted by Durzel
I've waffled, sorry. Flame on!

Nope, carry on - this is bloody interesting!