Hosting and ownership

[STINK]

We really need a sort of button to pass over ownership of a server towards another person i don't want to leave and have the server shutdown while people are doing dungeons or vise versa

[Sykes Two]

It doesn't really work that way.

[Caseadilla]

You're local-hosting the server, the server isn't hosted by any third-party.

The best you can do is let people know ahead of time with a ten or fifteen minute grace period.

[Nani Sore]

Would be nice if it would at least transfer ownership to the next person who has been in the game the longest. Was thinking about that myself, currently I constantly see hosts afk keeping games open which seems a little broken.

[Nitro Toxico]

The best way is to have dedicated servers. That way you can have a hosted game be active 24/7 untill you decide to stop the server.

[SilverLight]

Do...you know how hosting a server works?
When you open a multiplayer server, you aren't just hosting a room in a central server. Your own PC is the one hosting the server, and everyone else connecting is a client. You can't "transfer" that to the other players.

[little-mac-cpu-2]

actually nintendo"s peer to peer netcode works exactly this way. there is a host in mario kart wii and 8, when they leave the game lags then gives it to the next person in line. everyone saying this cant be done is just wrong. and im talking about world wide not just friends

[Caseadilla]

Originally posted by little-mac-cpu-2:

actually nintendo"s peer to peer netcode works exactly this way. there is a host in mario kart wii and 8, when they leave the game lags then gives it to the next person in line. everyone saying this cant be done is just wrong. and im talking about world wide not just friends

Giving a brief google:
"The only servers that exist is the matchmaking server - and all of the Wii U's in a room.

Each Wii U is a server for the game, and each a client. If you've ever heard of a torrent, that's almost exactly what it is, just between a maximum of 13 (12 players + persistent anticheat bot, which is disabled when playing with friends) people rather than thousands (that's actually used to download games and update data rather than the other ways, haha).

Essentially each device connects itself to another device with instruction from another, completely separate device. Only one (well more likely 10+) actual server(s) exists."



Two or maybe three things come to mind pertaining that.
One: it's console soft and hardware, which is maintained. The same can't be said for PC hardware, and any eventualities therein.

Two: I believe if this is implemented in any feasible way, IF it is feasible, it should be an opt-in option in the settings. I don't know about you, but unregulated online lobbies being thrust unto another player could come with some unsavory side effects depending on just HOW open Atlyss' local serverhosting is. Think remote access, malicious injections, doxxing...

Three: The infrastructure and coding itself. On one hand you have a game created by people with years to decades of game creation experience, proprietary code from past entries and similar games, and an overwhelming budget, manhours, and ability to source more assistance wherever needed.
We don't really know how much Kiseff CAN do in terms of this, only that the base of the game is made in Unity.

[Caseadilla]

On a side note; It's possible this might be doable through modding!

[Seth Abercromby]

Originally posted by Caseadilla:

One: it's console soft and hardware, which is maintained. The same can't be said for PC hardware, and any eventualities therein.

Just... No. Changing hosts on a peer to peer session is almost as old as the system has been used for gaming and is not something exclusive to Nintendo. It's a little more complicated than the likely very straightforward implementation the game uses now, but in super simple terms every client needs to have server-level knowledge of everything that's happening in the session (which they often already need to function properly anyways) alongside the connection table for every user connected to the server. When the connection to the server is lost, the clients will freeze the game and use their connection table to contact every host on the list and if successful build a new P2P network amongst themselves. The clients then declare a new host who will then renegotiate the game state with every client and resume game functions as the new host.

Originally posted by Caseadilla:

Two: I believe if this is implemented in any feasible way, IF it is feasible, it should be an opt-in option in the settings. I don't know about you, but unregulated online lobbies being thrust unto another player could come with some unsavory side effects depending on just HOW open Atlyss' local serverhosting is. Think remote access, malicious injections, doxxing...

A bit strange that you point this out as a concern for host migration when the exact same concerns would also affect any current hosts even without host migration?

Originally posted by Caseadilla:

Three: The infrastructure and coding itself. On one hand you have a game created by people with years to decades of game creation experience, proprietary code from past entries and similar games, and an overwhelming budget, manhours, and ability to source more assistance wherever needed.
We don't really know how much Kiseff CAN do in terms of this, only that the base of the game is made in Unity.

Writing any server logic is far from easy, but Unity and P2P are far from being unknown variables in regards to network logic. If Kiseff wants to put the work into making it possible it's very doable, just certainly more involved than a static host like the current lobbies are.

[Caseadilla]

Never said I was an expert at the topic, I do like discussions though. Not so much arguments*.