Geo-Filter: Location vs Allowed, and Dedicated Server vs Peer Questions (when playing games)

[SouthernGypsy]

I have two hopefully simple quick questions;

 

First Question is When playing a game such as Call of Duty, if a particular Sever/Peer is located at a place that is already inside of your "Allowed" area on the Geo-Filter Map, is there any additional benefit to also adding that server as "Allowed" at the bottom under the Allow/Deny table? or is that just redundant? or even harmful?

 

Second Question is What is the difference in a Dedicated Server and a Peer? 

Such as when playing CoD - in Dallas, Texas we have so far (and quite sure there are many more) identified 40+ servers that show up under Host Type: as "Dedicated Server" which display a server icon, and 60+ which show up as "Peer" and display a player icon even though they are clearly NOT other players (which is part of what causes our confusion/curiosity). Yet all of them both the ones marked as Dedicated Server and the ones marked as Peer are all clearly in the same location/server farm, and under Domain Name: they all start with different IP addresses but all end in the same company/domain name which is .vultrusercontent.com such as ###.###.###.##.vultrusercontent.com, which we know Vultr is a major contractor with Activision here in the US to provide server hosting for their games such as Call of Duty in many large cities.

But we have always been curious in this type of case what the difference is between a Dedicated Server and a Peer is, since they are all clearly in the same server farm and run by the same company?

[Netduma Fraser]

1. To play on the game right then no it's redundant. What is will do is if you end up changing your location/radius at some point to where that allowed server would now be outside your radius, if you had added it to your allow list you will still have the potential to connect to it.
2. Peer would be a player, an actual player being the host of that game and Dedicated Server being well a server. However, in this case the peers you're seeing will just be incorrectly classified as peers but are actually servers. Functionally on the Geo-Filter there is no difference, it's just visual.

[SouthernGypsy]

11 minutes ago, Netduma Fraser said:

1. To play on the game right then no it's redundant. What is will do is if you end up changing your location/radius at some point to where that allowed server would now be outside your radius, if you had added it to your allow list you will still have the potential to connect to it.
2. Peer would be a player, an actual player being the host of that game and Dedicated Server being well a server. However, in this case the peers you're seeing will just be incorrectly classified as peers but are actually servers. Functionally on the Geo-Filter there is no difference, it's just visual.

 

So on #1 - It does not do any harm to have them both Allowed and be inside the Radius at the same time?

It just doesn't add anything (unless as you said we change the radius and those servers end up outside the set radius).  I wanted to make sure on that one in case it was one of those situations like the choice between UPnP, Port Forwarding, and DMZ where the recomendation is usually to use only one of them at a time because using two or all of them at the same time can actually cause increased latency do to unessisary redundant processing and some people even claim can cause the router to become confused.

 

And on #2  - Thanks for clearing that up, We was kind of wondering if maybe they was just mis-classified, as we believed peers was supposed to be other players and yet these are very clearly Dedicated Servers of some kind and all within the same server farm/location and company as the ones which are correctly identified as Dedicated Servers.

 

 

[Netduma Fraser]

It doesn't do any harm no. Yeah totally understand and it's a good question!

We do our best to be able to classify but there are so many servers and they change them more often than you think that it's impossible to have it 100% correct.

[SouthernGypsy]

1 hour ago, Netduma Fraser said:

It doesn't do any harm no. Yeah totally understand and it's a good question!

We do our best to be able to classify but there are so many servers and they change them more often than you think that it's impossible to have it 100% correct.

 

Thanks, and that actually brings up something about how you lay out the Geo-Filter page that I had a suggestion for, because there are times when you want to deny a server in a location but the problem is you can't jus deny one, because like Dallas for an example, we know of over 40 servers and 60 peers (which apperantly are also mis-classified servers) and you'd have to deny each one of them individually because it will just find the next one the next time you play. So I think it would be a good idea if when you deny a server you can somehow tell it to deny ALL servers/peers at that location, maybe make a circle with a 10 mile radius on the map or something even if it's inside of your normal "allowed" area. I was going to make a post specifically about it with some screenshot examples when I get around to it later.

 

[Netduma Fraser]

Not all servers in a location will be bad to play on, at that point it's probably best to just exclude it from the radius. The problem with allowing mass denials is it could very easily cause issues but I will pass it on!

[SouthernGypsy]

1 hour ago, Netduma Fraser said:

Not all servers in a location will be bad to play on, at that point it's probably best to just exclude it from the radius. The problem with allowing mass denials is it could very easily cause issues but I will pass it on!

Well the thing is what I really want to do is to deny that entire location, BUT want to still allow players and other things in the general area. Instead of dragging this topic into another toppic I made another dedicated post where I explain it more in depth so it will make sense at;