[breadfan]

Originally Posted by PeleusSPR

Uhh just re-read what you said breadfan. A player does not host a game under the current bnet system, bnets dedicated servers do. So you're changing from two clients connecting to bnets servers to a host / client arrangement. Happy to be corrected otherwise with a source?

I only have empirical evidence, I don't think Blizzard go publishing their infrastructure plans - have you got a source yourself? it seems clear that someone is a host of a match. Next time you see Spartaz online, ask him to host (which is an option you choose at custom game menus) a series of matches with 3 obs and witness his lag (he gets a horrible connection to SEA). Then play a series with him not hosting but in the game and witness the difference. It is clear when in this situation with people who lag out as hosts that the act of 'hosting' puts additional demands on their connection. Sure I may be wrong but what I have said seems the most plausible based on the evidence I have at hand. Would be interested to know if you base it on the same?

[Dox]

Originally Posted by breadfan

I only have empirical evidence, I don't think Blizzard go publishing their infrastructure plans - have you got a source yourself? it seems clear that someone is a host of a match. Next time you see Spartaz online, ask him to host (which is an option you choose at custom game menus) a series of matches with 3 obs and witness his lag (he gets a horrible connection to SEA). Then play a series with him not hosting but in the game and witness the difference. It is clear when in this situation with people who lag out as hosts that the act of 'hosting' puts additional demands on their connection. Sure I may be wrong but what I have said seems the most plausible based on the evidence I have at hand. Would be interested to know if you base it on the same?

Players most certainly do not host games - this was one of the biggest infrastructure changes from traditional (ie. Brood War, WarCraft 3) Battle.net and SC2.

Battle.net hosts all games, whether it be AutoMM or Private.

[breadfan]

Originally Posted by Dox

Players most certainly do not host games - this was one of the biggest infrastructure changes from traditional (ie. Brood War, WarCraft 3) Battle.net and SC2.

Battle.net hosts all games, whether it be AutoMM or Private.

Any idea where I can read about this? I'm having a hard time on google, it'd be pretty interesting to find

[Peleus]

Originally Posted by breadfan

I only have empirical evidence, I don't think Blizzard go publishing their infrastructure plans - have you got a source yourself? it seems clear that someone is a host of a match. Next time you see Spartaz online, ask him to host (which is an option you choose at custom game menus) a series of matches with 3 obs and witness his lag (he gets a horrible connection to SEA). Then play a series with him not hosting but in the game and witness the difference. It is clear when in this situation with people who lag out as hosts that the act of 'hosting' puts additional demands on their connection. Sure I may be wrong but what I have said seems the most plausible based on the evidence I have at hand. Would be interested to know if you base it on the same?

No documentation that I can find offhand, just remember it being mentioned in interviews in the past along with discussions on the topic of LAN etc. This is also why the maps are distributed centrally instead of player to player as it was in BW. Also this is why any can be labelled / promoted to host in the lobby, it has nothing to do with any hosting on the local machine, merely who has the power of invitation and pressing the start button.

Either way as I was saying this massive move to centralisation offers great benefits over the P2P model, however it makes it difficult and requires big changes if suddenly you want to connect players directly. This is why I was saying it's a huge architecture change. Not that it can't be done at all, but it's not as simple as cut and pasting some code.