PA = peer2peer? ( Server related games VS. p2p)

Will PA be a peer2peer game like SupCom ? Or will be everything managed from the Server?
-
For a few days we had a discusssion in the chat (FAF) where a User complained about how crap peer2peer is because there's always someone with a crap Computer & (Connection).What do You think about it and what would You think would be better for PA?


vollatze aka. Prince

Having never played SupCom (I know, the blasphemy!) I don't know how it works there, but I did play one of the call of duties who had this and it is indeed terrible. Even though it supported host migration, the person who was the host was the major limiting factor and everyone was impacted if the host has a network hickup. Reestablishing the connection worked flawlessly in the sense that everyone was reconnected but you lose 'the flow' you're in. And if you're just about to make a headshot or a kill and the server hiccups, chances are that person will not be hit because of the lag spike.

Dedicated servers are great because they are readily available when you want to play, they are setup for the task of hosting games. Also, it's great for the community often times in games with dedicated servers you play on the same couple of servers and you come across some of the same people that are always there.

PA has been stated (many times) to use a client-server model.

On a side note, peer2peer (in the sense SC worked) does not automatically have to be crap. For example, it's possible to follow a policy of dropping players with slow computers or connections if they get too far behind in their simulation (due to cpu or network lag) rather than reducing speed for everybody else, which is what Spring does.

The client-server model will not be like in COD6 (well, there will be times where it can). Uber has said they'll be hosting a bunch of dedicated servers, as well as giving the community options to host their own.

So imagine it running like TF2, or COD4, or any decent FPS game.