@SpaceDebris
1. I wasn't talking about "lagging" either. I was pointing out:
- the information which was available to anyone "researching" a game
before buying. (even long before release day)
- it doesn't matter how much/little processing the HOST does, SINS can never be made to work as other (fps-type) games work with a client-server model. SINS is fundamentally
peer-to-peer, which means the HOST is not so much a HOST as a "ref" making sure everyone does the same thing at the same time.
2. The only way a "centralised" server could
establish connections over NAT/firewall and remove the port forwarding requirements
for a
peer-to-peer game, is if
all network transport followed this sort of map:
your PC <<>> router <<>> cable/dsl modem <<>> internet <<>> ICO <<>> internet <<>> cable/dsl modem <<>> other PC
So
all traffic sent to and from players would first get routed through ICO. The second you try to send packets NOT routed through ICO (using your method) we're back to square one, and having to forward the correct ports or the traffic is dropped.
You don't see a bandwidth problem with that?
Frankly, I do not want IronClad to "encapsulate/tunnel" anything through my routers/firewalls. To quote myself from another post:
Just because many games use "encapsulating/tunneling" techniques for their netcode to "bypass" NAT-devices doesn't make that some defacto standard. It is actually that much unsafer for your computer system, because traffic is handled much more "loosely" (loose NAT rules) which can only serve to increase a computer system's overall security-breach potential.
but then, that's just my opinion.
the Monk
