## 7 Simulation Results
### Performance Evaluation in a MANET Scenario  
We implemented our proposal in the open source network simulator NS2 [35] where we conducted simulations to evaluate the benefits of our approach. The MANET scenario was generated with the Bonnmotion tool [36]. The same quantity of interfering CBR traffic was generated in each simulation to constrain the paths. For instance, for 2 players, we generated interfering CBR traffic at 300 Kbps, 200 Kbps for 3 players, 150 kbps for 4 players and 120 kbps for 5 players. This way, a total interference CBR raffic of 600 Kbps was sent whatever the number of players was. The simulation settings of the scenario are shown in Table 3. All the figures show confidence intervals (CI) of 90 percent obtained from 20 simulations per point, each simulation with an independent Bonnmotion scenario.  
The scenario used to test the proposal consists of a set of 50 mobile nodes distributed in a MANET of 520 \(\times\) 520 m\({}^{2}\). The transmission range of the nodes is 120 m. Nodes move with a speed up to 2 m/s. Video flows are transmitted from nodes \(S_{i}\) to nodes \(D_{i}\), \(1\leq i\leq N\) where \(N\) is the number of players (sources). The paths discovered by the MMDSR routing protocol are classified by each user using the MMDSR path classification described in Section 3.4. Each source decides the path to route packets according to the game-theoretical routing algorithm presented in Section 5 and depicted in Figure 5.  
Figure 8 shows the average percentage of packet losses when using the game-theoretical scheme for a variable \(p\) value calculated using Algorithm 1 against the case of non using it (Non game option). We can clearly notice how including the game-theoretical routing scheme, the average video packet losses are reduced around 10% for \(N\) = 2 to 5 users. The average packet losses decreases due to the optimal selection of paths based on a probability value (_i.e._, \(p^{*}\)) that optimally balances the load among the two paths at stake (_i.e._, the best and the medium-quality paths). Figure 9 depicts the (I+P) packet losses  
Figure 8: Average percentage of packet losses.  
throughout simulation time. In this case, we see how using the game-theoretical model, losses are around 20% lower than non using it.  
Figure 9: Percentage of packet losses vs time (\(N\) = 3 users).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline
**Area** & **520 \(\times\) 520 m\({}^{2}\)** \\ \hline Number of nodes & 50 \\ Average node speed & 2 m/s \\ Transmission range & 120 m \\ Mobility Pattern & Random Waypoint \\ MAC specification & IEEE 802.11e, EDCF \\ \(CW_{i,min}\), i (0,1,2,3) & (7, 15, 31, 63) \\ \(CW_{i,max}\), i (0,1,2,3) & (15, 31, 1023, 1023) \\ \(AIFS_{i}\), i (0,1,2,3) & (34 \(\mu\)s, 43 \(\mu\)s, 52 \(\mu\)s, 61 \(\mu\)s) \\ \((BW_{min},L_{max},D_{max},J_{max})\) & (50 Kbps, 35 \%, 0.125 s, 0.004 s) \\ Nominal bandwidth & 11 Mbps \\ Simulation time & 1000 s \\ Video encoding & MPEG-2 VBR \\ Video bit rate & 150 Kbps \\ Video sources & 2 to 5 \\ Video sequence sent & Traffic accidents [37] \\ Routing protocol & Game-theoretical algorithm + MMDSR \\ Transport protocol & RTP/RTCP/UDP \\ Maximum packet size & 1500 Bytes \\ Multipath scheme & \(K\)=3 paths \\ Weighting values (Equation (3)) & 1/7 \\ Queue sizes & 50 packets \\ Interfering CBR traffic & (300, 200, 150 and 120) Kbps \\ Channel noise & –92 dBm \\ Mobility pattern generator & Bonnmotion \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Simulation settings of the MANET scenario.  
Figure 13 depicts the peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) obtained for 2, 3, 4 and 5 players. We can see that the case including the Game scheme improves the PSNR compared to the Non Game case. Also, PSNR decreases as \(N\) increases. This is because as \(N\) increases, the number of video frames to be sent increases, causing more packet losses and as a result a lower PSNR.