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.
Related
We are wondering what's a good networking design for mobile games that have real time single player battles like Clash of Clans.
One option is to do the battle completely on client side, and send the result back to the server when the battle is done. However it seems this will allow cheating. Is there any security model to handle this? Technically hackers can do anything that your client can do, so
The other option is to do real time networking between client and server. But I'm not sure whether this is a good idea for mobile games considering various network conditions.
Does anyone know what's a good design here? How does Clash of Clans do it?
Until CoC developer officially speak about it, it won't be known well. I my thoughts, CoC is somehow free from cheating because it allows attacked players to see the replay of what the attackers did to them.
Doing real time networking is best for preventing from cheaters, but it will annoy some game players because Wifi and LTE network occur 40~150ms latency with 10~20% packet loss. Moreover, CoC game play will give game servers much load for running A* algorithm for each mob character. Unlike League of Legends, the navigation path in CoC is changed as each Wall is broken, so O(1) by adopting path table technique is not feasible.
TL;DR
Is it appropriate for a (dedicated) web server to be sending many requests out to other servers every second (naturally with permission from said server)?
I'm asking this purely to save myself spending a long time implementing an idea that won't work, as I hope that people will have some more insight into this than me.
I'm developing a solution which will allow clients to monitor the status of their server. I need to constantly (24/7) obtain more recent logs from these servers. Unfortunately, I am limited to getting the last 150 entries to their logs. This means that for busy clients I will need to poll their servers more.
I'm trying to make my solution scalable so that if it gets a number of customers, I won't need to concern myself with rewriting it, so my benchmark is 1000 clients, as I think this is a realistic upper limit.
If I have 1000 clients, and I need to poll their servers every, let's give it a number, two minutes, I'm going to be sending requests off to more than 8 servers every second. The returned result will be on average about 15,000 characters, however it could go more or less.
Bearing in mind this server will also need to cope with clients visiting it to see their server information, and thus will need to be lag-free.
Some optimisations I've been considering, which I would probably need to implement relatively early on:
Only asking for 50 log items. If we find one already stored (They are returned in chronological order), we can terminate. If not, we throw out another request for the other 100. This should cut down traffic by around 3/5ths.
Detecting which servers get more traffic and requesting their logs less commonly (i.e. if a server only gets 10 logged events every hour, we don't want to keep asking for 150 every few minutes)
I'm basically asking if sending out this many requests per second is considered a bad thing and whether my future host might start asking questions or trying to throttle my server. I'm aiming to go shared for the first few customers, then if it gets popular enough, move to a dedicated server.
I know this has a slight degree of opinion enabled, so I fear that it might be a candidate for closure, but I do feel that there is a definite degree of factuality required in the answer that should make it an okay question.
I'm not sure if there's a networking SE or if this might be more appropriate on SuperUser or something, but it feels right on SO. Drop me a comment ASAP if it's not appropriate here and I'll delete it and post to a suggested new location instead.
You might want to read about the C10K Problem. The article compares several I/O strategies. A certain number of threads that each handle several connections using nonblocking I/O is the best approach imho.
Regarding your specific project I think it is a bad idea to poll for a limited number of log items. When there is a peak in log activity you will miss potentially critical data, especially when you apply your optimizations.
It would be way better if the clients you are monitoring pushed their new log items to your server. That way you won't miss something important.
I am not familiar with the performance of ASP.NET so I can't answer if a single dedicated server is enough. Especially because I do not know what the specs of your server are. Using a reasonable strong server it should be possible. If it turns out to be not enough you should distribute your project across multiple servers.
It appears that cheap consumer routers are fairly easy to crash: hanging around in various backup/sync software forums, I see this mentioned from time to time. Developers seem to be putting a fair amount of effort into making sure they don't crash the routers.
What are the "do"s and "don't"s for my network-heavy application to ensure that it doesn't cause issues with badly designed routers? Especially one that intends to connect to a number of peers?
IMO trying to workaround bad hardware is the road to nowhere, because every router fails in its own remarkable way :).
What you can do in the network-heavy application is assume that network is not stable media (routers can crash, etc) and design application network operations accordingly.
For instance, provide reconnect logic, connection timeouts, some sort of state caching to allow users work with app even if network connectivity is gone.
Concerning faulty routers - they usually crash because of great number of simultaneous connections (e.g. downloading via bittorrent or other p2p protocol). So, maintaining minimum number of connections can help.
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).
I'm building a system for monitoring several large web sites (resources), using distributed web services controlled by a central controller.
I'm coming to a specific part of the design - the actual reporting of resources that are thought to have fallen over.
My problem is that there is always the chance that the actual monitor it self is at fault, or has lost its network connection to a resource, and the resource is actually fine. I don't want to report issues if they are not really there.
My plan at the moment is to have the monitor request, that all other monitors check the resource if it encounters a problem, and then make a decision as to whether the resource has really fallen over based on collective results.
I'm sure there's someone out there with more experience of this type of programming than myself.
Is there a common solution to this type of problem? Is my solution a decent way of looking at this?
Your solution is about one of the only pragmatic ones.
There is nothing new under the sun. The IETF Routing Information Protocol wasn't the first attempt at addressing this problem, but it is well documented and works.
Note well, that there is no optimal (or perfect) solution to the class of problems which you are facing, the best you can do with in-band monitoring is make good guesses about where the fault is. In systems that need a very high degree of accuracy of fault information (e.g. the public switched telephone network) a parallel out-of-band monitoring network is established which itself must necessarily be monitored by humans.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will watch the watchers?) -- Juvenal, "Satires"