What should happen to the servers?

[bigfoot]

Shovel - cannot really answer your question sorry, but the methods like having a 30 min window then people get kicked would probably require extra bits of expensive kit which is why I didn't include it.

 

[(Shovel)]

OK, nps I didn't really expect you to publish the budget I mean, we might discover your "Retirement Fund" by accident

Cheers for given an answer though

 

[Clowneh!]

please delete the thread above, and this one afterwards...

do all game store employees act like such kids?

 

[old.Fweddy]

Is there no way to have the servers show up in ASE, etc, but then when non-subs try and connect giving them a message about the whole game.net thing?

 

[Greef]

Originally posted by old.Fweddy
Is there no way to have the servers show up in ASE, etc, but then when non-subs try and connect giving them a message about the whole game.net thing?

If it shows up in ASE, but has a little padlock, they'll ignore it.

Even if the password is just the letter 'm' and the name includes the password! :wall:

I just had a server up for 2 hours, saying 'join in, password is, etc', it showed up in ASE (a little experiment!) but I couldn't lose the padlock, so was ignored, even in a gametype that has too few servers! :doh:

Just goes to show, it takes -alot- more than opening a server to get it popular!

 

[kanonfodda]

Originally posted by bigfoot
The option about hacking game code to allow subs to join only part of the places available on the server just isn't doable outside of perhaps one game, so that isn't a realistic option.

The option about having limited time of 30 minutes is also unlikely to be possible to introduce which is why I didn't include it above.

I'm not so sure if that is the case. I can't think of a game that does not have remote rcon capabilities. I know most will return player IP's, so, theoretically, it would be possible to write an application that monitors servers, checks IP's for subs, and if not, marks them as public players. When a sub attempts to join that server, the application could then issue the RCON command to kick the longest connected non-sub.

As you have said later on though, this would require at least one server, to do all the work.

 

[(Shovel)]

The problem in some respects is that for something that does require an investment (such as an extra server to handle the the player IPs without deterimenting the service) we need to be damned sure of it working in practice...

If we were to achieve a completed discussion on this, and have something complete worked out, what would be the chances of GAME trying to set it up next time they install new servers? E.g. - you buy two new servers for games, one of them gets games straight away, the other one gets set up to implement something like this? If there was something pretty complete come out of this, would you be able to give it a shot?

 

[ECA]

Originally posted by kanonfodda
remote rcon capabilities.

I'd just like to point out that RCON stands for REMOTE CONSOLE :x

</pedant>

 

[kanonfodda]

Originally posted by ECA
I'd just like to point out that RCON stands for REMOTE CONSOLE :x

</pedant>

fair point, I know, but hey, it's monday morning

/edit: Besides, Microshaft do it (based on "New Technology" Technology :S)

 

[yankeedoodle]

Originally posted by Clowneh!
please delete the thread above, and this one afterwards...

do all game store employees act like such kids?

it was either that or start a new thread berating mystic g. It is more childish closing you're thread just because you happen to disagree with what is being said.

And i see alot of that happening on this forum. What happened to free speech? If you have to watch what you say on a forum, it becomes censorship, and defeats the purpose of a democratic forum. (bar uneccesary abusiveness or excessive swearing of course)

(Oh, just to stay on topic, option 3 is good for me.)

 

[Clowneh!]

so now ur pointing fingers and saying he did it first?

fucking grow up

 

[kameleon]

shush you two, use pm if you want to argue

 

[Clowneh!]

im gonna vote number 3 now cuz it seems that subs only priority thing cant happen

 

[1tchy trigger]

Originally posted by Gumbo
The best option would definatly be the, 'I'm sorry, a subscriber wishes to join now, you will be kicked in 10 seconds. To subscribe for as little as 12 pounds visit www.game.net' option.

I vote for this option. It makes the most sense - opens the servers up to the public again whilst not depriving the subscribers of places on the server = everyone's a winner! Surely if Game want to invest in multiplayer online gaming then they can afford a little more to invest in some the technology to run a subscription model properly?

 

[MYstIC G]

Originally posted by 1tchy trigger
I vote for this option. It makes the most sense - opens the servers up to the public again whilst no depriving the subscribers of places on the server = everyone's a winner!

Except there are 2 problems:
1) My whole clan subscribes & decides to play CS on a server, our mass join effectivly nukes all non-subs in 60 seconds & results in a clan vs public game (which are always lame)
2) If you've got like you had in the old days a bunch of the same type of server, 90% of the time having a sub is gonna make bog all difference cos you'd have to really care about wanting to play on BW otherwise you'd just move elsewhere after the servers are full.

 

[yankeedoodle]

Originally posted by Clowneh!
so now ur pointing fingers and saying he did it first?

fucking grow up

i am grown up, i can vote, i can shave and everything!

 

[(Shovel)]

Originally posted by MYstIC G
Except there are 2 problems:
1) My whole clan subscribes & decides to play CS on a server, our mass join effectivly nukes all non-subs in 60 seconds & results in a clan vs public game (which are always lame)
2) If you've got like you had in the old days a bunch of the same type of server, 90% of the time having a sub is gonna make bog all difference cos you'd have to really care about wanting to play on BW otherwise you'd just move elsewhere after the servers are full.

However clever/simple the solutions we come up with are, they will always be subject to the same, simple rule. They can and will still be able to get it free. We can't avoid that.

I guess what we are aiming for is a solution that will function long term and will increase the chances of a subscription. As has been said, you can't force people to because there's no other way to stop them playing elsewhere - or at least not right now.

The selling point on all these ideas remains the quality of the servers attracting people to the website to see what else is on offer with subs. And, in turn, comes around to the quality of the community.

 

[Gumbo]

Originally posted by MYstIC G

2) If you've got like you had in the old days a bunch of the same type of server, 90% of the time having a sub is gonna make bog all difference cos you'd have to really care about wanting to play on BW otherwise you'd just move elsewhere after the servers are full.

Exactly!

The fact that you had just had 45 minutes of great gaming on the server before the message popped up would make you think, 'hmmm i might go along and look at that game.net site, and see what I get for my 12 quid'. The servers would be getting exposed to people who at present have no idea they even exist.

I know when I used to play CS a lot, there were only 3 or so servers I would ever really play on, because I was at home with the other regulars from those servers.

For the same reason that I'd sit there hammering retry for 10 minutes till a slot opened up, I'd have definatly forked out a modest sum to almost guaruntee instant connection.

The fact is that the servers, certainly for the popular games would soon be full constantly as servers become populated by reputation, look at BW in the good old days. The subscriptions would come in from the gamers who wanted to be able to play with there buddies without fear of being kicked off.

Of course this is all hypothetical as it is the most technically complicated idea I think. If there is any way at all that it is possible, which it seems there might just be, it has to be looked at seriously, surely.

 

[kanonfodda]

From a purely technical point of view, the software is already in place (a la barrybar). All that needs adding is the ability for the barrybar (server side component) to kick non subed players in favour of a sub joining.

It already has to do the authentication, so the hardware is in place, it shouldn't be that hard to add the additional code.

 

[Gumbo]

How does that work with the current invisibility of the servers thing though. For this idea to work, the servers would need to be plainly viewable without the need to download any new apps. Otherwise we're right back in the 'people can't be bothered' place.

If you can have it so you need the barrybar to recognise you as a sub, but need nothing to play with the risk of being booted, then it'll be fine.

 

[Scooba Da Bass]

It's mindboggling how much work that would require, and I don't have any clue about programming, I'd imagine any programmers are weeping with how much it would require.

 

[Gumbo]

I understood that at it's most basic, you could run all the connections through a box, logging the ips, then, when a game is full but a sub wants to join, you find the oldest ip that isn't logged in and boot it via whichever games rcon.

As a basic premise it's very simple, however the talking to the different games part I would have no idea about, for that we need more input, gogogo networkie techie type dudes....

 

[(Shovel)]

You only need to talk to the game if it's critical to have a "You've been removed because ...." message.

If you have such a message when you log in then you can just cut the connection - thereby it's compatible with all games. No, it's not hugely pretty, but it works.

It was mentioned elsewhere about using rcon in games that support it. That is the "pretty with lots more work" solution

 

[vgster]

Number 2 all the way. All you need is a couple of public servers running around the clock ads for BW. Let the users play but tell them who is giving them the ability to play and what else they would get if they prefered to pay for it.

Also, mainly with MOH, some sort of quality anti-cheat would get more people interested. A few have moaned at me about BW not living up to the anti-cheat message, and the fact that the anti-cheat BW uses having been cracked and out of date.

Since the BW MOH community has 4 AA and 4 SH servers, I would love to see 2 of each go 24/7 public with the other 2 being held back for the community. With some quality cheat protection and a couple of good admins the message will start to get out about BW again. Before the p2p scheme they were always full but on the Monday before the p2p scheme went live they went and have stayed empty.

I think also to get more interest in BW maybe other stuff regarding clan servers needs to be addressed.

Regards

VG

 

[Aeron]

Option #3 seems the best,although why not alternate the times/servers,i.e. ...half go public from x:xxam till x:xxpm & the subs x:xxpm to x:xxam & swop it around ,you get the idea anyways :moon:

As far as anti-cheats go,to be honest they are all pointless to a certain extent as there are ALWAYS cheats that do go undetected and it's down to admin judgement/experience to make the call.

No sub likes waiting in an empty server for long in the hope others will connect,still.... looking forward to see the outcome of this

 

[Greef]

I still think the best idea is to have a couple of publics available to the general public and a couple for subscribers only in a 50 - 50 blend. This should operate 24 hours a day imo. Plenty of console messages about subscription benefits, inc access to more of these brilliant servers should be flashed up regularly.

My reasoning:

There is resistance to opening up -all- the publics to non subscribers, so keep some server capacity behind for subs.

A 'certain times of day only'/'kick non-subs in favour of subs' system would be hard work to administer and seem unfair to many. This would keep them away in droves imho. It's bad enough losing connections for random reasons/giving up your place so some1 else can play on a packed server while you make a cuppa etc & then you can't get back on!

Noone wants the publics to stay subs only & empty like they are.

Making them bookable only would be great for clans, but where on game do you go to get the skillz to be good enough to get invited into a clan?

Cheers

Greef

 

[Bondie]

I think number 2 is a good idea but number 3 could persuade people about paying to see if they want to pay to be able to play 24/7 on servers

 

[Will]

Having some public and some hidden servers wouldn't work at all...you'd just have full publics, and empty subscribers servers. All you'd be doing is shifting the tumbleweed out of a few boxes, but not getting any more subs.

 

[(Shovel)]

Originally posted by Scooba Da Bass
It's mindboggling how much work that would require, and I don't have any clue about programming, I'd imagine any programmers are weeping with how much it would require.

It's not easy no, but there isn't going to be a "See Scooba's Big Fat dog walk.. run... collapse exhausted" solution to an inherently complicated subscription model, competing with free services.

 

[Trancor]

Competition?

I've voted for option 3. Although if they had a competition open to subscribers in which the could win something i.e. a free copy of a game or a months free subscription. And addvertise this in a place where none-Subscribers could see it, they may think about paying so that they could take part.