So I'm writing a fairly simple game with very low networking requirements, I'm using TCP.
I'm unsure where to start in even defining/implementing a protocol for the client and server to use. I've been looking around and I've seen a few examples, for instance Mojang's Minecraft which uses a table of 'commands' the client sends the server and the server sends the client, with numbers of arguments and such.
What's a good way to do this? I've heard complaints about Minecraft's protocol because if you overread by a byte you ruin the entire stream.
Game networking is a broad question, depending on what type of problem you are solving. TCP (may) not even be the correct choice for you.
For example - games that send movement of characters is typically done with UDP. The reason being that character movement isn't critical to the operation of the game, so some data loss of movement is "acceptable". That may be why sometimes your character "jumps" - some UDP packets were lost, or severely out-of-order.
UDP is argued as the preferred protocol for networked games. So before you even get started, carefully consider whether you are even picking the correct protocol.
Overall, I consider Glenn Fiedler's series on developing a networked game a fantastic read. I'd start here. He covers all of the basics of using UDP for gaming.
If you want to use TCP simply just to get a handle on TCP - then Minecraft is a reasonable example. A known list of commands that can be sent back and forth is a simple way to start. However, as you stated, is prone to some problems. This is more aligned with using the wrong protocol than how it was developed.
Google "game networking library" and you'll get a bunch of results. GNE would be a good one to look at.
I guess it depends on what your game is, what it mechanics are, what information is necessary. In any case I think this stack exchange https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/ is more suited to answer your question.
Gamedev.net's networking forum has a great FAQ covering these sorts of questions and many others, however, to make this more than a 'go-there-look-at-that' answer, I'll suggest some small improvements you can make. When using tcp, delivery is guarenteed, but this has a speed cost, which is fine if your not making a fps, but it means you need to get more from the data you do send, a great way to do this is via deltas/differentials, that is, sending only the change in state, not the entire game state, you can also validate your incoming packets for corrupt/anomalys data over and about tcp checks by predicting possibilities are allow, and with the same prediction, you can cut out even more data etc. But as others have said, this is a broad question, and not suited to getting truely helpful answers
As you're coding in lua, the only library anyone uses is luasocket (though ZMQ is gaining ground).
You're really going to have several protocols going: TCP for data that must be received (eg, server commands such as changemap or you_got_kicked, conversations and such; then use UDP for non-compulsory data, or data that quickly expires (eg, character positions).
Related
I want multiple IoT devices (Say 50) communicating to a server directly asynchronously via TCP. Assume all of them have a heartbeat pulse every 30 seconds and may drop off and reconnect at variable times.
Can anyone advice me the best way to make sure no data is dropped or blocked when multiple devices are communicating simultaneously?
TCP by itself ensures no data loss during the communication between a client and a server. It does that by the use of sequence numbers and ACK messages.
Technically, before the actual data transfer happens, a TCP connection is created between the client (which can be an IoT device, or any other device) and the server. Then, the data is split into multiple packets and sent over the network through that connection. All TCP-related mechanisms like flow-control, error-detection, congestion-detection, and many others, take place once the data starts to flow.
The wiki page for TCP is a pretty good start if you want to learn more about how it works.
Apart from that, as long as your server has enough capacity to support the flow of requests coming from the devices, then everything should work (at least in theory).
I don't think you are asking the right question. There is no way to make sure that no data is dropped or blocked. Networks do not always work (that is why the word work is in network, to convince you otherwise ).
The right question is: how do I make my distributed system as available and reliable as possible? The answer involves viewing interruption and congestion as part of the normal operation, and build your software appropriately.
There is a timeless usenix/acm/? paper from the late 70s early 80s that invigorated the notion that end-to-end protocols are much more effective then over-featured middle to middle protocols; and most guarantees of middle to middle amount to best effort. If you rely upon those guarantees, you are bound to fail. Sorry, cannot find the reference right now, but it is widely cited.
I am working on a project which requires sensor information to be obtained from multiple embedded devices so that it may be used by a master machine. The master currently has classes which contain backing fields for each sensor. Data is continuously read on each sensor and a packet is then written and sent to the master to update that sensor's backing field. I have little experience with TCP/UDP so I am not sure which protocol would work better with this setup.
I am currently using TCP to transfer the data because I am worried about data on our rotary encoders being received out of order. Since my experience with this topic is limited, I am not sure if this is this a valid concern.
Does anyone with experience in this area know any reasons that I should prefer one approach over the other?
How much you care about getting know a packet was delivered?
How much you care about getting know a delivered packet was 100% correct?
How much you care about the order of packet delivery?
How much you care about the peer is currently connected?
If the answers were "I care a lot", you'd prefer to keep on using TCP because it ensure all four points.
The counterpart is that UDP could be more lightweight and fast to handle if you manage small packets.
Anyway, it's not so easy choose this or that. Just try.
And read this brief explanation: http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/key-differences-between-tcp-and-udp-protocols/
I'm no expert but it seems this might be relevant:
Do you can about losing data?
If so, use TCP. Error recovery is automatic.
If not, use UDP. Lost packets are not re-sent. I also believe ordering here is not guaranteed.
I am building a multiplayer game where players are simultaneously asked a question and they have to pick an answer. They have a few seconds to answer and they are asked the next question when the time is out or everyone has answered.
I am planning on using Java (or nodeJS if I feel like learning a new framework) on the server side and JS (jQuery and jQuery Mobile) on the client side. I might build native apps later too so I want to keep the option opened.
My question is: what server communication protocol would you suggest?
I was thinking of regular TCP (HTTP with Ajax) calls since latency is not really the issue but I am ready to review this choice if you suggest otherwise.
Thanks a lot for your help
When using UDP the burden to implement retry and congestion control will fall on you. Therefore, I recommend you stick with the reliable and easy TCP until there is a specific reason to switch. If latency turns out not to be acceptable, which I doubt in your case, you can switch to UDP.
Another thing to remember, if you are creating the game on mobile device and you don't want to lose the players connected over 3G, you will need to make sure you are using standard ports to connect to the server side, otherwise operators will disconnect you.
HTTP Streaming and WebSockets over TCP/IP is the best way to go. Lightstreamer, which leverages HTTP and WebSockets, uses TCP but tries to overcome some of its limits with some smart algorithms for latency reduction (which seems to be crucial for the game you described) and bandwidth optimization. Thus, it can be used with great benefits for any multiplayer games of any complexity (including MMORPGs, for example). At a first glance it seems it can fulfill your requirements, and it could be a good solution if you are also planning to develop native apps in a second step.
Lightstreamer is based on a publish/subscribe model, in which every item is defined by a set of fields whose values can change over time (in order of milliseconds). These could include "general items", subscribed by any users (e.g the game countdown; who is the first responder) and delivered in real-time. This way, the data delivery mechanism underlying your game logic seems quite easy to implement with Lightstreamer.
Have a look at this recent article (Optimizing Multiplayer 3D Game Synchronization Over the Web). You can walk through an online demo of a simple multiplayer 3D world in which Lightstreamer has been integrated for real-time synchronization.
The demo allows you to tweak each parameter of the scenario and simulate any flavor of data delivery, while checking the actual bandwidth consumption. Of course, full source code is available for free on GitHub. You could give it a try. Let me know if you need some help :)
[full disclosure: I work for Lightstreamer]
Are there any libraries which put a reliability layer on top of UDP broadcast?
I need to broadcast large amounts of data to a large number of machines as quickly as possible, and generally it seems like such a problem must have already been solved many times over, but I wasn't able to find anything except for the Spread toolkit, which has a somewhat viral license (you have to mention it in all materials advertising the end product, which I'm not sure our customer will be willing to do).
I was already going to write such a thing myself (because it would be extremely fun to do!) but decided to ask first.
I looked also at UDT (http://udt.sourceforge.net) but it does not seem to provide a broadcast operation.
PS I'm looking at something as lightweight as a library - no infrastructure changes.
How about UDP multicast? Have a look at the PGM protocol for which there are several commercial and open source implementations.
Disclaimer: I'm the author of OpenPGM, an open source implementation of said protocol.
Though some research has been done on reliable UDP multicasting, I haven't yet used anything like that. You should take into consideration that this might not be as trivial as it first sounds.
If you don't have a list of nodes in the target network you have no idea when and to whom to resend, even if active nodes receiving your messages can acknowledge them. Sending to a large number of nodes, expecting acks from all of them might also cause congestion problems in the network.
I'd suggest to rethink the network architecture of your application, e.g. using some kind of centralized solution, where you submit updates to a server, and it sends this message to all connected clients. Or, if the original sender node's address is known a priori, then just let clients connect to it, and let the sender push updates via these connections.
Have a look around the IETF site for RFCs on Reliable Multicast. There is an entire working group on this. Several protocols have been developed for different purposes. Also have a look around Oracle/Sun for the Java Reliable Multicast Service project (JRMS). It was a research project of Sun, never supported, but it did contain Java bindings for the TRAM and LRMS protocols.
I am looking for networking designs and tricks specific to games. I know about a few problems and I have some partial solutions to some of them but there can be problems I can't see yet. I think there is no definite answer to this but I will accept an answer I really like. I can think of 4 categories of problems.
Bad network
The messages sent by the clients take some time to reach the server. The server can't just process them FCFS because that is unfair against players with higher latency. A partial solution for this would be timestamps on the messages but you need 2 things for that:
Be able to trust the clients clock. (I think this is impossible.)
Constant latencies you can measure. What can you do about variable latency?
A lot of games use UDP which means messages can be lost. In that case they try to estimate the game state based on the information they already have. How do you know if the estimated state is correct or not after the connection is working again?
In MMO games the server handles a large amount of clients. What is the best way for distributing the load? Based on location in game? Bind a groups of clients to servers? Can you avoid sending everything through the server?
Players leaving
I have seen 2 different behaviours when this happens. In most FPS games if the player who hosted the game (I guess he is the server) leaves the others can't play. In most RTS games if any player leaves the others can continue playing without him. How is it possible without dedicated server? Does everyone know the full state? Are they transfering the role of the server somehow?
Access to information
The next problem can be solved by a dedicated server but I am curious if it can be done without one. In a lot of games the players should not know the full state of the game. Fog-of-war in RTS and walls in FPS are good examples. However, they need to know if an action is valid or not. (Eg. can you shoot me from there or are you on the other side of the map.) In this case clients need to validate changes to an unknown state. This sounds like something that can be solved with clever use of cryptographic primitives. Any ideas?
Cheating
Some of the above problems are easy in a trusted client environment but that can not be assumed. Are there solutions which work for example in a 80% normal user - 20% cheater environment? Can you really make an anti-cheat software that works (and does not require ridiculous things like kernel modules)?
I did read this questions and some of the answers https://stackoverflow.com/questions/901592/best-game-network-programming-articles-and-books but other answers link to unavailable/restricted content. This is a platform/OS independent question but solutions for specific platforms/OSs are welcome as well.
Thinking cryptography will solve this kind of problem is a very common and very bad mistake: the client itself of course have to be able to decrypt it, so it is completely pointless. You are not adding security, you're just adding obscurity (and that will be cracked).
Cheating is too game specific. There are some kind of games where it can't be totally eliminated (aimbots in FPS), and some where if you didn't screw up will not be possible at all (server-based turn games).
In general network problems like those are deeply related to prediction which is a very complicated subject at best and is very well explained in the famous Valve article about it.
The server can't just process them FCFS because that is unfair against players with higher latency.
Yes it can. Trying to guess exactly how much latency someone has is no more fair as latency varies.
In that case they try to estimate the game state based on the information they already have. How do you know if the estimated state is correct or not after the connection is working again?
The server doesn't have to guess at all - it knows the state. The client only has to guess while the connection is down - when it's back up, it will be sent the new state.
In MMO games the server handles a large amount of clients. What is the best way for distributing the load? Based on location in game?
There's no "best way". Geographical partitioning works fairly well, however.
Can you avoid sending everything through the server?
Only for untrusted communications, which generally are so low on bandwidth that there's no point.
In most RTS games if any player leaves the others can continue playing without him. How is it possible without dedicated server? Does everyone know the full state?
Many RTS games maintain the full state simultaneously across all machines.
Some of the above problems are easy in a trusted client environment but that can not be assumed.
Most games open to the public need to assume a 100% cheater environment.
Bad network
Players with high latency should buy a new modem. I don't think its a good idea to add even more latency because one person in the game got a bad connection. Or if you mean minor latency differences, who cares? You will only make things slower and complicated if you refuse to FCFS.
Cheating: aimbots and similar
Can you really make an anti-cheat software that works? No, you can not. You can't know if they are running your program or another program that acts like yours.
Cheating: access to information
If you have a secure connection with a dedicated server you can trust, then cheating, like seeing more state than allowed, should be impossible.
There are a few games where cryptography can prevent cheating. Card games like poker, where every player gets a chance to 'shuffle the deck'. Details on wikipedia : Mental Poker.
With a RTS or FPS you could, in theory, encrypt your part of the game state. Then send it to everyone and only send decryption keys for the parts they are allowed to see or when they are allowed to see it. However, I doubt that in 2010 we can do this in real time.
For example, if I want to verify, that you could indeed be at location B. Then I need to know where you came from and when you were there. But if you've told me that before, I knew something I was not allowed to know. If you tell me afterwards, you can tell me anything you want me to believe. You could have told me before, encrypted, and give me the decryption key when I need to verify it. That would mean, you'll have to encrypt every move you make with a different encryption key. Ouch.
If your not implementing a poker site, cheating won't be your biggest problem anyway.
With a lot of people accessing games on mobile devices, a "bad network" can occur when a player is in an area of poor reception or they're connected to a slow-wifi connection. So it's not just a problem of people connecting in sparsely populated areas. With mobile clients "bad networks" can occur very very often and it's usually EXTREMELY hard to diagnose.
UDP results in packet loss, but even games that use TCP and HTTP based can experience problems where the client & server communication slows to a crawl while packets are verified to have been sent. With communication UDP compensation for packet loss USUALLY depends on what the packets contain. If you're talking about motion data, usually if packets aren't received, the server interpolates the previous trajectory and makes a position change. Usually it's custom to the game how this is handled, which is why people often avoid UDP unless their game type requires it. Often to handle high network latency, problems games will automatically degrade the amount of features available to the users so that they can still interact with the game without causing the user to get kicked or experience too many broken features.
Optimally you want to have a logging tool like Loggly available that can help you find errors related to bad connection and latency and show you the conditions on the clients and server at the time they happened, this visibility lets you diagnose common problems users experience and develop strategies to address them.
Players leaving
Most games these days have dedicated servers, so this issue is mostly moot. However, sometimes yes, the server can be changed to another client.
Cheating
It's extremely hard to anticipate how players will cheat and create a cheat-proof system no one can hack. These days, a lot of cheat detection strategies are based on heuristic analysis of logging and behavioral analytics information data to spot abnormalities when they happen and flag it for review. You definitely should try to cheat-proof as much as is reasonable, but you also really need an early detection system that can spot new flaws people are exploiting.