[HN Gopher] Networking of a turn-based game ___________________________________________________________________ Networking of a turn-based game Author : blue1 Score : 51 points Date : 2022-02-15 21:05 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (longwelwind.net) (TXT) w3m dump (longwelwind.net) | bob1029 wrote: | In my experience, most of the pain boils down to synchronization | of state between participants. This is also your principal vector | for cheating. | | If you are willing and able to make a very extreme sacrifice | regarding client-server architecture, it is feasible to | consolidate all state to 1 synchronous domain while serving an | arbitrary number of participants. | | The sacrifice is basically to build your game as a native take on | the Google Stadia model. I.e. inputs are raw player events, | output is a low latency A/V stream back to player. | | Keep in mind you don't have to always serve an x264 stream to all | clients. Depending on your objectives and type of game, you can | serve an intermediate view model that instructs the client on how | to draw its view using local assets and resources (textures, | models, gpus, etc). This would be more like how Blazor server- | side model operates. | d0m3 wrote: | Nice article. I built my own online version of a turn based board | game because none exists at the moment. I just want to play with | my family so I didn't bother coding a server at all, instead all | clients communicate their actions to all others so I naturally | implemented the deterministic approach. I haven't thought about | secret state so it's interesting to see a possible solution for | that. Fun! | wanderer_ wrote: | I have poked and prodded at making my own turn-based game, and | one thing I have learned is validation. Don't trust input, and | you will make robust serverside code. Assume every bit sent by | the client was maliciously sent in order to bring down your | service in flames. Keep this mentality, and security becomes that | much easier. | | AJAX long polling is a good way to send data while avoiding | spurious requests and/or delays, albeit with a bit more load on | the server. | MrLeap wrote: | Seconded. The way I look at this is to always build the | allowable action space from nothing, and default to nothing. | Most of the time it involves a state machine where each node | comes with a white list of currently allowable verbs a client | can send. | | The alternative is an infinite action soup, which opens | opportunities for inspiration by lateral thinking. I'm doing it | this way for a single player Lovecraftian text editor I'm | working on. It's a terrible idea for multiplayer things. | CyberShadow wrote: | The second-generation Worms games (2, Armageddon, WWP) use the | same approach (here called "Deterministic action propagation | method"). It was implemented by Karl Morton, and we also used for | replay files (which is why the game logic is meticulously | versioned). | | The solution we used for managing secret state, when the state is | from a random source, is to delay generating the secret | information for as long as possible (so, e.g., if a card is | drawn, the drawn card is decided at that moment, as opposed to | pre-shuffling the deck at the start of the game). We experimented | with some designs in which the secret is revealed only to the | player who owns it, and the rest only see a verifiable hash of | the secret until the player performs an action which reveals the | secret; however, it doesn't solve the general problem that any | time the game must immediately (without network latency) make a | random choice, the design must compromise between either allowing | a hacked client to predict the result (when the RNG output is | stable) or manipulate it (when the RNG output changes very often, | e.g. every frame). | | Sadly, the newer games went for a simpler synchronization | algorithm, in which if a discrepancy is detected, the entire | state is simply copied over from one player's game to another. | This does allows blatant cheating; I'm guessing it was a | concession due to the new engine lacking in robustness or | portability. | Spivakov wrote: | About deterministic propagation model: "It relies on the | assumption that processing the actions of a player is | deterministic." | | I am curious in what scenario of online gaming does this | assumption fail. | | I remember that about a decade ago there was a mobile game called | Chaos and Order (like dota/League of Legends but was played on | apple device). In one game, I heavily outplayed my opponent. | After winning the match we added friends and realized that we | actually experienced two totally different games - he lost it in | my game but won it on his side, and my in-game actions made | nonsense in his one. We called it a "ghost". | | It is just funny to see how crappy the outcome would be if the | deterministic propagation fails. Also in context such as system | theory where error inevitably happens, the design shall make sure | the extent of failure will not go unbounded. | baggy_trough wrote: | Usually bugs, for example if the rng doesn't get handled in | precisely the same way. | meheleventyone wrote: | The very worst kind of determinism errors are butterfly effect | like in that you don't notice the desync until long after the | cause has occurred. It's pretty imperative if you're building a | deterministic system to add a layer of error checking right | from the start so you can ensure each party ends up in the same | state and identify desync very early. On the other hand you | also want to identify where desync doesn't matter (for example | most FX) so you limit the scope of what has to be deterministic | to keep things simple. | ermir wrote: | This is called a "desync" and is a bug in a particular | implementation of multiplayer networking. In this model instead | of the server sending the state to each player, it sends their | inputs, and allows the local device to completely determine the | state of the game. If there are any differences at all in how | the game's calculations are made, the game will have different | states in different devices. Even different models of the | iPhone may have tiny differences in how they calculate the | square root for example, and over time these minor differences | cascade into totally different games. | Thaxll wrote: | Imagine the same game being played on different platform ( | different CPU... ) with different compiler etc ... it's | possible that the physics does not behave exacly the same | everywhere. | | It used to be the case not so long ago. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-02-15 23:00 UTC)