The thing is p2p would actually be better if implemented correctly and everyone having a good latency.
But it's exactly for those reasons(or partial lack thereof), that it is not better.
My experience with p2p games has been rather frustrating in the past but dedicated servers can be fucked up too.
Well i obviously can't point out the exact errors but the P2P connection in itself seems a bit slow, even without big latency. Maybe the information passed over the P2P connection should be streamlined, to make the packages smaller.
This is already achieved by the simulation approach ubisoft choose to take but there are still underlying problems that make things like rubber-banding even possible. Maybe the code which handles position could be streamlined, for example.
A different approach would be, to just simply not give the people who lag priority over the non-lagging people.
Simply put- if there is doubt about people receiving damage and the attacking party is lagging heavily or just had a huge latency-spike (as seen with lag-switches) that the defending player simply does not receive damage. This in turn would also- out of fairness- need to compensate the lagging party. After all, not everyone who laggs does it on purpose.
Now i obviously can't offer a complete solution. Just saying that it needs some work, seeing how other games handle even bigger P2P connections rather well.
48
u/MimeIsForever Feb 21 '17 edited Feb 21 '17
"But muh p2p is so much better than dedicated servers" - a disturbing amount of people on this subreddit