Matchmaker/StartGame Issues

Question

question

Chris Gunderson asked Aug 14, '16

Matchmaker/StartGame Issues

We have recently added a pvp game mode to our game and when the current match is over, we want to close the current server instance and spawn a new one from the dedicated server (which is hosted using the custom game server tools on playfab). Calling Matchmaker/StartGame starts up the game properly, but clients cannot connect to it with a call to Client/Matchmake. The return from StartGame gives the proper lobbyID and server/ip, but the client just receives

"code":200,"status":"OK","data":{"PollWaitTimeMS":1000,"Status":"Waiting"}. I'm curious if we're just using an incorrect endpoint in our startgame call? We have been using

"ExternalMatchmakerEventEndpoint": "https://93f0.playfabapi.com/" in the call to startgame. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.

Custom Game Servers Matchmaking

10 |1200

Attachments: Up to 2 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 512.0 KiB each and 1.0 MiB total.

Answer 1 · 2016-08-15T08:36:37Z

brendan answered Aug 15, '16

The Matchmaker API is actually intended for use with your own custom matchmaker server, so I can't recommend using that API method this way.

We are planning on adding StartGame to the Server API set soon, specifically to support scenarios like this. For now, I would recommend using the Client StartGame API call, in order to unblock your testing.

3

10 |1200

Attachments: Up to 2 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 512.0 KiB each and 1.0 MiB total.

Brian Jordan commented · Apr 03, 2018 at 06:05 PM

Are there still any plans to add StartGame to the Server API / CloudScript? Looking in to whether there might be a way to allow for invitation-only servers while doing a bit of throttling against Client.StartGame abuse without deploying an external matchmaking service. Alternatively if the Matchmake API were available from within CloudScript, that could possibly be another path?

0 ·

brendan Brian Jordan commented · Apr 03, 2018 at 08:46 PM

Sorry, spoke too soon on that one. Even relatively small tasks like that take at least a half-day, due to the requirement to add a complete set of tests for all new code, so it's hard to get tasks prioritized if we don't have a lot of requests (full transparency, I was trying to force time into my own schedule to make some of these smaller changes - hence, the reason I foolishly thought I could get it done soon back when I said that). Now that we're part of a larger team, I'm hopeful that some of these backlogged items will get into the pipe more quickly, but it's hard to say for sure when this will happen.

0 ·

Brian Jordan brendan commented · Apr 03, 2018 at 11:35 PM

Totally understandable! Of any group, the devs reading this forum should appreciate both how the prioritization game goes and the service's stability :) thanks for the update!

0 ·

question