Democratic Test Server

Luke-Jr · Post by **Luke-Jr** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:51 pm

I suggest a democratic test server that allows polls for *configuration* changes-- maps, rubber, etc...
So it consists of two goals:
- Code: Polls on safe configuration options
- A low-latency server to run it on

Any thoughts?

Website · Post by **Z-Man** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:33 pm

I think "democratic" and "test" more or less exclude each other, if "democratic" means that the players choose the settings. They don't like true test settings

Code wise, what we could offer now would be server admin controlled selection of include files. The admin writes the files, makes them known to the system, and the players can say "/settinglist" to get a list of setting files that are offered with short descriptions and say "/settingvote highrubber" to start a vote on one of them. Custom, server defined vote items are already there, so this would be compatible with old clients. A usability problem with free form setting votes is that few people know the meaning of the most important settings; with a free form vote, they'd have to trust the vote submitter's description of the effect and may easily be tricked. I'd say admin defined setting collections give us 99% of what makes sense.

In the long run, we should classify the settings and commands in groups and security levels; admins could then lock or unlock selected groups for more flexible voting and remote admin access.

Luke-Jr · Post by **Luke-Jr** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:41 pm

z-man wrote:I think "democratic" and "test" more or less exclude each other, if "democratic" means that the players choose the settings. They don't like true test settings

Depends on who the players are, I guess.

Perhaps a better idea would be to allow players to queue up maps, and sort them in order of how many times the map has been played and how recently (the last map would get an infinitely negative weight, and a never-played map would weigh at 0)

z-man wrote:Code wise, what we could offer now would be server admin controlled selection of include files. The admin writes the files, makes them known to the system, and the players can say "/settinglist" to get a list of setting files that are offered with short descriptions and say "/settingvote highrubber" to start a vote on one of them. Custom, server defined vote items are already there, so this would be compatible with old clients. A usability problem with free form setting votes is that few people know the meaning of the most important settings; with a free form vote, they'd have to trust the vote submitter's description of the effect and may easily be tricked. I'd say admin defined setting collections give us 99% of what makes sense.

That prevents testing random new maps, which is the primary goal I'm thinking of fulfilling with this

z-man wrote:In the long run, we should classify the settings and commands in groups and security levels; admins could then lock or unlock selected groups for more flexible voting and remote admin access.

philippeqc · Post by **philippeqc** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:09 am

Map voting, luke's second idea, sound very good.

Now the question is, would maps that are "aquired taste" ever reach a popular status?

-ph

Post by **Lucifer** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:10 am

Judging from the amount of knee-jerking I've been seeing lately, I'm going to have to say no, philippe. Sorry.

Luke-Jr · Post by **Luke-Jr** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:36 am

Actually, the second idea wasn't map voting... users would submit maps, but the server would determine the order to go through the request list. In particular, less played maps would get preference over a map that has been played many times.

philippeqc · Post by **philippeqc** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:41 pm

Sound great too.

But isnt is somewhat a risk that someone could in more secrecy publish a map containing a disruptive hack than if he need to host the game server too?

-ph

/me thinks Luke need to refine the art of presenting an idea the first time ;)

Luke-Jr · Post by **Luke-Jr** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:58 pm

philippeqc wrote:But isnt is somewhat a risk that someone could in more secrecy publish a map containing a disruptive hack than if he need to host the game server too?

Well, the resource uploader does log IP and username... =p

joda.bot · Post by **joda.bot** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:39 pm

If map resources can crash the server, we have to fix bugs

Might be a good exploit demonstration server

philippeqc · Post by **philippeqc** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 7:56 am

Luke-Jr wrote:
philippeqc wrote:But isnt is somewhat a risk that someone could in more secrecy publish a map containing a disruptive hack than if he need to host the game server too?
Well, the resource uploader does log IP and username... =p

Yeah, I forgot that there arent any anonymous proxies anymore :P

I'm just saying "this is a risk, be warned!". As long as you make sure the server logs all the files it opens, then it might act as a sort of honeypot, drawing all the script kiddies there, and telling us very fast of any know possible exploits.

Otherwise, just to throw it there, you could have a "star" rating from 1-5, where more popular maps (5) play more ofen than less popular map. I remember an article on Slashdot explaining the algo used for the ipod shuffling function that uses the star rating. Such a behavior might be appropriate on the server you want to make. For example, you could have a vote after each map is played. "Raise, keep and lower" would be the choice, and the one with the most vote would be the one applied to the star rating. I think asking for a score value from all the players would not give the result expected, and would tend to have all the maps with around-medium scoring.

In all cases, when can we expect your server to be up?

-ph

Luke-Jr · Post by **Luke-Jr** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:06 pm

So perhaps the selection algorithm should be something like (-100 * timesPlayed) + (10 * numberOfVotes) - positionInRequestList

I'm not currently running a server.

philippeqc · Post by **philippeqc** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 9:02 am

I'm not saying anything agains your proposed algo in the following text:

Be proactivly lazy: uses someone else's algorythm. It might have some flaws and caveat, but at least the are KNOWN flaws and caveat.

http://www.omninerd.com/2005/08/25/articles/34

Good luck with the implementation, the idea sure sound interesting (If only I could vote out the "brush" map from CT ;) )

-ph

philippeqc · Post by **philippeqc** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 9:06 am

Luke-Jr wrote:
In all cases, when can we expect your server to be up?
I'm not currently running a server.

O ok, let me ask a different question:

In all cases, when can we expect (was: "your server" now: )"this feature" to be (was "up" now: )"available"?

-ph

ed · Post by ed » Wed Jul 05, 2006 9:21 am

philippeqc wrote:If only I could vote out the "brush" map from CT
-ph

Get caught in it's bristles, huh?
Yeah, you're not the only one.

xevic · Post by **xevic** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:49 pm

lol ed, they are blasfeming of ur maps, it has to be some kind of tron delict

about the test server, i think it's just a utopia, has no sense, think in 2 tester at same time, i think if someone need to test something he can make a provisional server 4 it, if he doesn't know how, it means he don't deserve to test anything, jajajaj, sure he will break it all.

and if u think in just a list of modifiers, it is just like giving them the admin pass....