Thoughts on a properly new VON

[Testament/Seven7]

He's talking about how it takes roughly 10 attempts on average to connect to an opponent. It really is the worst thing about VOOT 360. Sometimes you spend more time in the lobby than in the game.

this is either due to lack of opponents, or the opponents that are there are either declining your invite to battle or connecting to other opponents first, and is, again, not a fault of the game itself, at least from what i've seen...

[Sixfortyfive]

He's talking about how it takes roughly 10 attempts on average to connect to an opponent. It really is the worst thing about VOOT 360. Sometimes you spend more time in the lobby than in the game.

this is either due to lack of opponents, or the opponents that are there are either declining your invite to battle or connecting to other opponents first, and is, again, not a fault of the game itself, at least from what i've seen...

First, it's not due to a lack of opponents, as I always go through the always-populated lobby and not Quick Match. (Quick Match has an even worse failure rate.) Second, if the vast majority of your attempts at getting into an online game fail, and only for this particular video game, then yes, I'd posit that it is in fact due to poor design and/or coding.

You know how that, uh, animated hexagon of hexagons shows up whenever you try to connect to another player? Whenever a connection attempt falls through, it usually comes at one of two points:

- the animation doesn't even get through half of its first cycle; I'd say this is due to that player signing off or getting into a game with somebody else before you try to join his game, and thus you are kicked back to the lobby immediately.
- the animation cycles through exactly 5 times and then the process times out; This is probably the most common error for me and it doesn't make any sense. The game seems to try to connect to the opponent for exactly 10 seconds and just fails and gives up for some reason.

I'd say that any connection failures between these two time intervals are when the other player refuses your challenge. This is less common for me than either of the others. I still think it's stupid to even allow people to refuse challenges in ranked matches though.

For that matter, it would also be helpful if the game actually informed the user why the connection failed instead of having us guess at it.

[Testament/Seven7]

Hmm, wierd, the vast majority of my attempts go through, but it depends on the time of day, sometimes there's only like 3 people in the lobby, but again, I have little trouble during populated hours...

maybe your internet connection? just an idea..

[Kyper]

I guess my 'net connection is messed up or my luck's really bad, 'cause most of the time when I try to connect to someone else it fails. I've resorted to sitting in the lobby and waiting for someone to play me, it works out okay but I know I could be playing at least twice the amount of matches in that period of time.

Also with connection issues, sometimes the match connects but it quits after it shows the intro screen and kicks both players back to the lobby...

[MentholMoose]

I haven't done any analysis of the network traffic, but apparently you connect to other people directly for matches, and only use Sega/MS servers for the match setup. So the game must have some NAT traversal code, since mostly everyone is behind a router, to setup the direct connections. I don't know how well this code works in every one of the many situations that are possible, though I am familiar with NAT traversal. It is complicated and more info can be read here:
Wikipedia: NAT traversal

For two endpoints to connect, one side of the connection needs to be directly accessible. For our situation, this means that if both players are behind a NAT-enabled router, at least one of their Xbox 360 consoles should have some accessible ports (e.g. UPnP enabled and working, port forwarding manually configured, or true NAT-- i.e. one to one address mapping). If at least one side is accessible, it can serve as the "host", and the other client can connect directly.

A problem arises when neither side is directly accessible... if either host tries to connect, the data will just be dropped by the other person's firewall since no connection is expected. This is where some NAT traversal magic has to be used. For some P2P applications, the solution is actually to have the clients connect through a third-party without a restrictive NAT on the P2P network. This won't work for a latency-dependent application, though, so some other techniques have to be used, which will be hit-or-miss due to the lack of standards in both NAT and NAT traversal technologies. Basically, even if the latest and best NAT traversal techniques are implmented in VOOT 360, there will still be problems because every router vendor implements NAT differently, so some traversal techniques will work fine on certain routers, and completely fail on others.

I was having a few connection failures and I think it was my router. I have a Cisco PIX and it doesn't support UPnP, and I didn't setup port forwarding, so sometimes it was hard to get a connection. My solution was to get another static IP from my ISP for my Xbox 360, put a switch between my modem and router, and put my Xbox 360 directly on the Internet. Once this was done, connection failures became much less frequent.

[Sixfortyfive]

That makes some sense, actually.

I've already given my 360 a static IP and put it in my router's DMZ (so all the ports are unblocked for it), and I don't get any NAT errors when checking the status my Xbox Live connection through the 360. The thing is, the DNA side is always the host of the match in VOOT 360, at least in System Link mode. If the same holds true for online matches, then it doesn't matter if my connection is configured correctly or not when I'm trying to join somebody else's game in the lobby, as they're the ones who are going to be given the DNA side.

[MentholMoose]

I've already given my 360 a static IP and put it in my router's DMZ (so all the ports are unblocked for it), and I don't get any NAT errors when checking the status my Xbox Live connection through the 360.

I'm not sure what your router's DMZ feature actually does. Does it forward all "unexpected" incoming traffic to the Xbox 360? The problem with NAT (technically in most cases "PAT") is that unless port forwarding is somehow configured (manual, UPnP, or maybe a "DMZ" feature), traffic incoming to the router meant for the Xbox 360 and not expected by the router will just be dropped by the router since it doesn't know where to send it. Since NAT functionality varies, it is best to try to eliminate it (or at least exclude it as the possible point of failure).

The thing is, the DNA side is always the host of the match in VOOT 360, at least in System Link mode. If the same holds true for online matches, then it doesn't matter if my connection is configured correctly or not when I'm trying to join somebody else's game in the lobby, as they're the ones who are going to be given the DNA side.

I definitely need to do some analysis of the traffic generated by VOOT 360, to see what is actually going on. But, typically there are multiple layers of communication for this type of application... so, the NAT traversal functionality should be independent of the game session.

What should happen first is the establishing of two-way communication, and the NAT traversal will happen here. Once the NAT traversal succeeds, and both sides can talk directly, they will then work out who is the host. Although for VOOT, I'm not sure what being the host actually means. The netcode seems to work as a P2P application (as opposed to client-server), with both sides having certain aspects of the "host". I say this because there appears to be input lag for both DNA and RNA sides for online matches, and in a typical client-server game, the host wouldn't have input lag.

[Schooly D]

The netcode seems to work as a P2P application (as opposed to client-server), with both sides having certain aspects of the "host". I say this because there appears to be input lag for both DNA and RNA sides for online matches, and in a typical client-server game, the host wouldn't have input lag.

This is what was bugging me. The game doesn't behave as if one player has "host." Or maybe it has, and I've just never gotten host in all of the games I've played.

From my experience with Halo, when one person has host, what's going on on his Xbox is what's truly going on in the game. He has no input lag, and nothing out of the ordinary happens on his screen. For a non-host player, though, things are different. There is no input lag (that is, when you input an action, it happens instantly on your screen), but your game doesn't perfectly represent what's going on. For example, if you're sniping someone, you might pull the trigger and appear, on your screen, to fire the bullet and have it hit the enemy. But a moment later, you get shot by the enemy die instead. This is because his data got to the host before yours did, and the host Xbox looked at when you fired your shot, when he fired his shot, determined that he shot you first, and then sent back the grim news to your Xbox that you got owned. To ameliorate this, the game's netcode has some amount of prediction as far as what a player will do/where he will go, but it's never perfect. So, to sum up, it looks like there's no input lag, but the game can behave weirdly.

VOOT, however, feels more like a client-server setup with a dedicated server elsewhere and both players connecting to it. It seems like both players experience the same thing since the server is telling them both how it is. There's a delay between the input and what happens on screen, but it might as well be between the controller and the Xbox because that's what it feels like. It never happens that you hit someone with an attack and watch the animation play and the health drop before the game realizes that you didn't actually hit him and instantly rectifies the mistake on your screen. So, to sum up, there is input lag but the game behaves normally.

Given that there aren't many VOOT players at all, I think it's possible that the game is using some dedicated server somewhere. Or maybe there's some sort of "double-check" system where both Xboxes agree on a particular state of the game before producing it.

[Schooly D]

Oh, also, I'd like for the next Virtual-On to consist entirely of 15 different Apharmd variations.

[MentholMoose]

Given that there aren't many VOOT players at all, I think it's possible that the game is using some dedicated server somewhere.

This is another possibility, but I doubt it. The main reason is that if VOOT 360 used a client-server model with a dedicated server, then people shouldn't be having so many connection problems (indeed one of the benefits of a dedicated server is to eliminate connection problems, since the server is configured to accept connections from everyone). Also, if there was a dedicated server required for online play, then system link mode would need to use different netcode since no dedicated server is available. In any case, this is easy enough to check with a packet capture, and I'll be checking it sometime after I'm back from vacation.

[Sixfortyfive]

I'm not sure what your router's DMZ feature actually does. Does it forward all "unexpected" incoming traffic to the Xbox 360? The problem with NAT (technically in most cases "PAT") is that unless port forwarding is somehow configured (manual, UPnP, or maybe a "DMZ" feature), traffic incoming to the router meant for the Xbox 360 and not expected by the router will just be dropped by the router since it doesn't know where to send it. Since NAT functionality varies, it is best to try to eliminate it (or at least exclude it as the possible point of failure).

I'm not familiar enough with the technical specifics, but typically putting an IP address in my router's DMZ is functionally the same as manually forwarding all of the ports for it. Usually whenever I want to use a P2P service (bittorrent, etc) on my PC, I just put my PC in the DMZ temporarily. Whenever I play online games (PC, 360, Wii, DS, whatever), I just stick that device in the DMZ, and it typically works fine.

I can try setting up manual port forwarding and QoS and whatever else I can find for the 360 to see if it changes anything, but I've got my doubts.

Given that there aren't many VOOT players at all, I think it's possible that the game is using some dedicated server somewhere. Or maybe there's some sort of "double-check" system where both Xboxes agree on a particular state of the game before producing it.

I'm not sure if there are any Live games that have dedicated servers; I thought it was all P2P, but that's just hearsay and I could be wrong. Your second comment is more likely but not a given.

[MentholMoose]

I can try setting up manual port forwarding and QoS and whatever else I can find for the 360 to see if it changes anything, but I've got my doubts.

I suggest connecting the Xbox 360 directly to your modem. If the problems go away or at least decrease, then there is something wrong with the router. If the problems persist, it may be something with your ISP. It's possible there is something with your ISP or router that is somehow triggering a bug in the netcode. In any case, having a 90% connection failure rate is not normal and there is a problem somewhere.

[Sixfortyfive]

I can try setting up manual port forwarding and QoS and whatever else I can find for the 360 to see if it changes anything, but I've got my doubts.

I suggest connecting the Xbox 360 directly to your modem. If the problems go away or at least decrease, then there is something wrong with the router. If the problems persist, it may be something with your ISP. It's possible there is something with your ISP or router that is somehow triggering a bug in the netcode. In any case, having a 90% connection failure rate is not normal and there is a problem somewhere.

A good idea, but that notwithstanding:

A local friend of mine has almost as much bad luck as I do, and he has a different ISP.

I've seen threads on other forums and reviews on other sites that say that this game is already a ghost town online, which is obviously false (there are people in the lobby every minute of every day), but these people are presumably choosing Quick Match and it's never working, so they just assume no one's on.

This is a problem unique to this game for me.

[MentholMoose]

Well we need to narrow it down to get anywhere. If we can determine if it's a problem with your router, then maybe we can determine if certain router brands or models or have problems, or having certain features enabled (or not enabled) on the router, or certain firmware revisions, and so on.

I can tell you that with my router, with no ports forwarded and no UPnP, I had some problems which were resolved by bypassing the router. My ISP gave me some extra static IPs, so I didn't really have to troubleshoot further since I don't require the Xbox 360 to be on my LAN. Most likely there is something about your router that the game doesn't work well with. I only mentioned the ISP possibility since ISPs can and do break things with their networks.

[Sixfortyfive]

Yeah, you've got the right attitude about it. Some of my previous posts sound somewhat more dismissive than I intended.

You seriously don't have problems getting into a game? 90% might be pushing it, but it's at least 80% for sure.

[MentholMoose]

It's been fine for me since I bypassed the router.

[VR-Eli]

Oh, also, I'd like for the next Virtual-On to consist entirely of 15 different Apharmd variations.

Sgt. Hatter confirmed!

[Knoxximus]

I just want it to be bundled with Twin Sticks.

Hey, if Acti-Blizz can bundle the new Tony Hawk with a frealing plastic skateboard for $120, then, in my book, ANYTHING is possible!

[Testament/Seven7]

I just want it to be bundled with Twin Sticks.

Hey, if Acti-Blizz can bundle the new Tony Hawk with a frealing plastic skateboard for $120, then, in my book, ANYTHING is possible!

This!