Why not LAN? | Forums

[he1nz]

I know what is LAN I just don't know how it works on consoles. But for PC (and consoles) it's for me something evident, a must for GRW.

My bad.. I misunderstood your reply, and thought you didn't know what LAN meant.. I got that impression because it sounded like you think that the feature has to be approved by Sony and Microsoft.

It has nothing to do with them! (PSN and Xbox Live) At least, I hope so! Because, if they are denying developers to ad that feature to games that run on their platform.. then their greed has no limits, and that would suck big time. I wouldn't be surprised though.

[SuperBiscotCOT]

I am sorry

I really don't knew how it worlk for consoles thanks for explanations

[Cortexian]

To clarify, LAN mode on consoles is basically support for "System Link" play. Essentially it's the same as LAN on a PC network, you connect all your consoles with Ethernet cables to a LAN Ethernet switch, and then on supported games you can host/join game lobbies. IMO, this should be supported as well as split-screen for the console players. Just gives people more options on how they want to play.

Ex: Some kids in college / university are roommates in a house. They each have their own Xbox One and TV's because they want to play their own games from time to time without sharing one console. They purchase Wildlands and want to play together, they can play on their own consoles with a fullscreen view without sharing a screen, and they can play offline cooperatively with each other.

Benefits:
No need to share a screen.
No need to rely on campus or low quality "budget" Internet connection that students typically pay for.

[SuperBiscotCOT]

Ok now I see even better what you want, and I agree this would be a very good thing to add in the game regardless of benefits.
Thanks to all of you I have know a better knowledge about consoles

[Ghost Sniper33]

To clarify, LAN mode on consoles is basically support for "System Link" play. Essentially it's the same as LAN on a PC network, you connect all your consoles with Ethernet cables to a LAN Ethernet switch, and then on supported games you can host/join game lobbies. IMO, this should be supported as well as split-screen for the console players. Just gives people more options on how they want to play.

Ex: Some kids in college / university are roommates in a house. They each have their own Xbox One and TV's because they want to play their own games from time to time without sharing one console. They purchase Wildlands and want to play together, they can play on their own consoles with a fullscreen view without sharing a screen, and they can play offline cooperatively with each other.

Benefits:
No need to share a screen.
No need to rely on campus or low quality "budget" Internet connection that students typically pay for.

Is it me or would it not help online multiplayer as well as it would then make it able to have local hosts rather then servers, so it would lower the load on them?

[Cortexian]

Technically you're right, if games were run completely offline in the scenario I described and no multiplayer connection to a server needed to be made it would definitely lower the load on those servers. That said, having a cooperative LAN mode connect to multiplayer servers to "host it" is just silly. If the developers implement something like this I'll personally slap their hands with a ruler next time they try and touch a keyboard to program something!

Makes no sense to have LAN cooperative be hosted on a WAN dedicated server somewhere. LAN play is fine to use Peer2Peer hosting, especially if it's for cooperative play. Some people could argue that for professional level adversarial play you still want a private dedicated server running on the LAN, but for friendly adversarial competition I still think Peer2Peer would be fine for LAN... The reason people don't like it for adversarial play is because technically the "host" in a Peer2Peer game has ZERO ping. They are the server, the master and commander of all other players. That said, on a LAN your ping should be 1ms or less... So it shouldn't really matter that much.

[Ghost Sniper33]

I ment more on the thought of having hosts like back in the GR2 days, that if one box can host on a LAN why can't they on standard multiplayer? - I get the ping thing, but shouldn't it be elimated with decent connections that its not really noticable?

[Cortexian]

I ment more on the thought of having hosts like back in the GR2 days, that if one box can host on a LAN why can't they on standard multiplayer? - I get the ping thing, but shouldn't it be elimated with decent connections that its not really noticable?

Peer2Peer hosting is still used by many modern games for multiplayer. It's just not the ideal solution. If the host decides to stop playing, the game closes and everyone gets booted. If the host has a problem with their internet connection everyone has a bad experience, or gets booted. There are a lot of reasons NOT to use Peer2Peer for multiplayer but it's typically fine for LAN.

You can have a "host" on dedicated servers, but technically I guess that player is really an admin.

Yeah that's definitely an admin. On a properly hosted off-site dedicated server hosted in a datacenter there should be no single player that has a ping advantage (unless one of the technicians at the data center is playing games at work on your server... ).

When allowing players to host their own private dedicated servers, one thing to be aware of is that a lot of players don't realize the purpose of the software. They'll try and host a dedicated server on a spare computer in their home, and this isn't ideal for a couple reasons.

1. When they play on their own dedicated server, it will be available to them on their own LAN. This means they'll get a massive ping advantage. They'll get 1ms or less ping, and everyone else will be getting at least 30-40ms ping, likely closer to 100ms ping.

2. Hosting on residential internet connections on consumer equipment means dropouts. You probably don't have a SLA with your ISP unless you have a business connection. That means the server won't be available all the time, and you might not even get your full connection bandwidth due to saturation and other problems that plague consumer internet connections.

[Cortexian]

Purely server vs client side hit detection is a thing of the past, good networking code utilizes a combination of both systems now so that people actually see what they expect on their screens. Obviously in the past when it was either client OR server side hit detection, server side was typically better because it "evened the playing field" for everyone. Client side was basically whoever had the best ping = winner, and also super exploitable when it came to cheating.

[SuperBiscotCOT]

What's R6 using? Couldn't find a decent answer, but everything we're seeing is suggesting server side only. Did anyone ask?

I have exactly the same question. I know they fixed things for servers after realease but I really don't know what is the final server system.