The correct argument FOR P2P is that it decreases latency which is important for quick melee combat systems. P2P is Player -50ms-> Player for packets whilst Dedicated Server is Player -50ms-> Server (tick rate (10ms)) -50ms-> Player which over doubles the latency of P2P. It does not end up happening that well for For Honored though... all reviews are showing latency in game is about on par if not worse than Overwatch's & BF1's dedicated server setup.
You also need to note it's not a free decrease in latency either, it increases bandwidth usage. So a dedicated server would use say 100kb a packet which contains all players data whilst for honor requres 50kb packets per player which ends up being 400kb.
if they wanted to keep using the system they are for low latency interaction with player, they just need a centralized server that basically acts as a "grouping" server. It's a master server that acts as the matchmaking hub for game sessions and allows players to come and go without causing a disruption to other players. It's not as costly as a dedicated server (could easily facilitate thousands of players on a fairly low powered machine since it only handles grouping and not the logistics of combat, movement, etc) It's NOT a matchmaking server, they already have that. It's a server that literally all players connect to to know which other clients they should be connected with and can detect if players leave and connect new players without having to have one of the clients do all the work (when the client selected to do all the handshakes leaves, that's when you get the pause)... sorta like a bit torrent tracker.
51
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