advice about my game servers

hi,

sorry for english

i made a game with multiplayer plugin

in my game every room can have 20 players and my players use auto join to join top server which is not full.

so i must have so many empty game server for new players to join

and i want to buy vps with a windows os but which is the best way to run my game servers with max power and no lag in the game. i didn't use graphics in my server side game and remove not important stuff like fx or ..

so my game server have a good performance.

since my game must have much game servers i must run many games in one vps and i want to use best of my server performance

so there is the things i can do :

1. i can install chrome and run every server in a chrome tab

2. i can install chrome and run every server in every new chrome window

3. i can use a page with many iframes and in each iframe open a server game and use chrome or nw to run that iframe

4.i can use another browser if they are better to save performance like opera or ff or..

5. what's your suggestion

thanks.

The server will not determine the speed of your connections.

The player to player network connection quality will determine the lagg they experience.

My suggestion would not be to run the server as a game host yourself, but find a better game implementation where the host is part of the regular gameplay.

Ofc you can find and work implementations with frames and browsers and what not ... to be the game host and serve that in browsers ....

But I believe the limit for webrtc connections on a server is 256; which imo would be a waste of server to support so few.

lennaert thanks for the answer

my host game is separate from the regular game because :

1. no one can cheats

2. nobody can get my javascript and copy my game because they don't have the server game!

and maybe i could increase to 50 player but no more (my game is rts and i can not have more player in one map because of bandwidth and fps)

1. well .. that depends ... I could imagine a quick and dirty trainer if you don''t use some sort of token for client identification.

Meaning I could perhaps create my own peer, which sends commands / action periodically.

2. People get the client, right ? and they use this to play the game .... the host is provided by you

Just saying

1. well .. that depends ... I could imagine a quick and dirty trainer if you don''t use some sort of token for client identification.

Meaning I could perhaps create my own peer, which sends commands / action periodically.

2. People get the client, right ? and they use this to play the game .... the host is provided by you

Just saying

1. users must register and i check everything in host game and host check things with database so game actually happens in host users just send inputs !

2. if they do that doesn't have anything for them and maybe better for me because they don't have host so they can not use my game to sell stuff like gems, gold,... .

> 1. well .. that depends ... I could imagine a quick and dirty trainer if you don''t use some sort of token for client identification.

> Meaning I could perhaps create my own peer, which sends commands / action periodically.

>

> 2. People get the client, right ? and they use this to play the game .... the host is provided by you

>

> Just saying

>

1. users must register and i check everything in host game and host check things with database so game actually happens in host users just send inputs !

2. if they do that doesn't have anything for them and maybe better for me because they don't have host so they can not use my game to sell stuff like gems, gold,... .

Sounds well planned !!

Do you have anything running atm ? I wouldnt mind taking a look

what is "atm" ?! (sorry my english is bad)

if you want to look at my game well you can't !

but i still looking for an answer

atm, "at the moment"

As to your other question, I fear you will get no direct response here.

The topic had been brought a few times last year, it came down to that the current multiplayer mechanics are not geared towards a self host "Host" solution. But rather using the game mechanics intended use, and have a host be one of the players.

atm, "at the moment"

As to your other question, I fear you will get no direct response here.

The topic had been brought a few times last year, it came down to that the current multiplayer mechanics are not geared towards a self host "Host" solution. But rather using the game mechanics intended use, and have a host be one of the players.

why is that ?

i simply can run each host game in a chrome window and in host game check every time it get disconnect auto connect and create room

so host well work and everything is fine ! whats the problem then ?

If your game is even slightly heavy, running multiple instances will take its toll on the server.

One server should be able to handle like 250 players ... what if the game grows ?

what happens if chrome crashes ? ... or hangs ....

...

Then there is the thing about the signalling server ... I believe there is some limitation to free use. I don't think your intended approach would cover that.

Well, that was my advice on the matter.

Feel free to report back with successes or a demo, I'd gladly take a look.

what you mean of 250 players limitation ?

this limitation is for one game ? (on chrome tab or window)

or for every ip and every computer ?!

why there is a limitation ?

On Chrome there is a peer connection limit of 256.

Its a limit in place to safeguard stability.

On Chrome there is a peer connection limit of 256.

Its a limit in place to safeguard stability.

what if i open a game in multi chrome window ? then every window have 256 limit ?