Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 61, Issue 1, pp 163–180 | Cite as

Improving online gaming experience using location awareness and interaction details

  • Dewan Tanvir AhmedEmail author
  • Shervin Shirmohammadi


Latency is a key element for online game quality and user experience. The client–server approach is a widely used system supporting hundreds of thousands of players on a regular basis. However, if latency among players via an intermediate server is large, timely interaction for them could be difficult. In this article, we present a procedure to share game states for a group of players within their area of interaction so that players can comply with stringent time-constraint and improve their game experience. As players move around in a game space, so do their virtual positions. In addition, the relative orientation of players within an area of interaction is unpredictable which indeed changes quite frequently. Because of these facts, we cannot make a predefined rule set for message exchange among players. So a message exchange plan currently working well might have low efficiency after a while due to dynamic changes. In our procedure, considering the importance of interaction, relative orientation, and virtual and geographical locations, we devise a message exchange plan that works alone in each client machine with the local information available. Significant performance improvements are noticed through simulations, validating our approach.


Networked games Client–server Latency Lag compensation Synchronization Performance 


  1. 1.
    Ahmed DT, Shirmohammadi S (2010) A Quality Control Algorithm Based on Virtual Distance in Games. in International Conference on Embedded and Multimedia Computing (EMC) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahmed DT, Shirmohammadi S, Kazem I (2006) Zone based messaging in collaborative virtual environments. in IEEE International Workshop on Haptic Audio Visual Environments and their Applications (HAVE), 165–170Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Assiotis M, Tzanov V (2006) A distributed architecture for MMORPG. in ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Network and system support for games (NetGames), 4Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chambers C, Feng W-c, Sahu S, Saha D (2005) Measurement-based characterization of a collection of online games. in ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet Measurement, 1Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Claypool M, Claypool K (2006) Latency and player actions in online games. Entertainment networking SPECIAL ISSUE: Entertainment networking, 40–45Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dick M, Wellnitz O, Wolf L (2005) Analysis of factors affecting players’ performance and perception in multiplayer games. in NetGames ‘05: Proceedings of 4th ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Network and system support for games, 1–7Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    El-Sayed A, Roca V, Mathy L (2003) A survey of proposals for an alternative group communication service. IEEE Network 17(1):47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feng W-c, Chang F, Feng W-c, Walpole J (2005) A traffic characterization of popular on-line games. IEEE ACM Trans Networking 13(3):488–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fritsch T, Ritter H, Schiller J (2005) The effect of latency and network limitations on MMORPGs: a field study of everquest2. in NetGames ‘05: Proceedings of 4th ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Network and system support for games, 1–9Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hampel T, Bopp T, Hinn R (2006) A peer-to-peer architecture for massive multiplayer online games. in NetGames ‘06: Proceedings of 5th ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Network and system support for games, 48Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hosseini M, Ahmed DT, Shirmohammadi S, Georganas ND (2007) A survey of application-layer multicast protocols. IEEE Commun Surv Tutorials 9(3):58–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    IEEE standard for distributed interactive simulation—application protocols, 1998Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaune S et al. (2009) Modelling the Internet Delay Space Based on Geographical Locations. in Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Network-based Processing, 301–310Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller JL, Crowcroft J (2010) The Near-Term Feasibility of P2P MMOGs. in Proc. of International Workshop on Network and Systems Support for Games (NetGames) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pullen JM (1999) Reliable multicast network transport for distributed virtual simulation. in International Workshop on Distributed Interactive Simulation and Real-Time Applications, 59Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ratti S, Hariri B, Shirmohammadi S (2010) A survey of first-person shooter gaming traffic on the internet. IEEE Internet Comput 14(5):60–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schiele G et al. (2007) Requirements of Peer-to-Peer-based Massively Multiplayer Online Gaming. in Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE international Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid, 773–782Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shirmohammadi S, Georganas ND (2001) An end-to-end communication architecture for collaborative virtual environments. Comput Netw 35(2–3):351–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Singhal S, Zyda M (1999) Networked virtual environments: design and implementation. SIGGRAPH Series. Addison-Wesley and ACM Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smed J, Kaukoranta T, Hakonen H (2001) Aspects of networking in multiplayer computer games. in International Conference on Application and Development of Computer Games in the 21st Century, 74–81Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Distributed and Collaborative Virtual Environments Research Laboratory, School of Information Technology and EngineeringUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations