Dedicated Server Option? (+ Other Suggestions)

[Ray]

It would be great to be able to run a dedicated server that people could connect to all the time. The settings would always be the same, and it would never go down because the host disconnects. Is this possible?

Also, I would like a friends list option, so I can know if my friends are on or not and maybe even the ability to connect to the server that they are playing on and watch them.

The ability to make the winner of the game an alliance, rather than a single player.

I think that is all for now. I'm liking the game so far, much more fun 3 vs 3 than 1 vs 1 for those of you who haven't tried it. I was suprised.

[KuBi4K]

http://forums.introversion.co.uk/defcon ... php?t=2278

[Montyphy]

Also, FAQ

[Ray]

The dedicated server option was not the only suggestion I had, care to comment on the others?

[Montyphy]

Also, I would like a friends list option, so I can know if my friends are on or not and maybe even the ability to connect to the server that they are playing on and watch them.

Have you tried this? Yes, its not built in, no it doesn't list just your friends or highlight them in a special way, yes it requires you auth key, but its better than nothing and its a work in progress.

The ability to make the winner of the game an alliance, rather than a single player.

That would just make games boring. There's only suppose to be one winner.

[Ray]

Why do you seem hostile all the time Montyphy?
What happened to people being able to host servers with WHATEVER settings they wanted.

[Montyphy]

Why do you seem hostile all the time Montyphy?

I seem to be hostile because that's the way you choose to interperet my posts.

What happened to people being able to host servers with WHATEVER settings they wanted.

And hosting a game as a spectator does not perform that function in what way?

[Ray]

The ability to make the winner of the game an alliance, rather than a single player.

That would just make games boring. There's only suppose to be one winner.

You said that, well, why can't it be a setting that I can change as to whether the alliance wins, or just the player.


Oh, and I interperet your posts, I don't interupt them.

[Montyphy]

why can't it be a setting that I can change as to whether the alliance wins, or just the player.

The whole point about Defcon is paranoia. If alliances could win then there would be no real need or want for backstabbing. Although considering there is a permit defection option, who knows, may be the feature will later be added depending on the demand. For now, however, you'll just have to use the permit defections option set to disabled (or may be not, but that could make things kinda messy and unfair) and total the scores of each player in an alliance in order to declare a real winner.

Personally, I don't see much point.

Oh, and I interperet your posts, I don't interupt them.

I'm sure you mean interrupt and not interupt since that is what I mistakenly typed in the first place.

[dustoff258]

Dedicated servers. Strip down the graphics and give us a dedicated server file . Makes it easier for friends to gather and to have settings etc stay the same.

was playing with some friends and when the game ends it takes a while to bring up another server , name it the same and wait for it to appear on the list. Also having a dedicated server makes it easier to find the same server over and over again.

I was hoping there was going to be a dedicated server file for this one. My dedicated box sitting at a remote data center is just begging to host this game .

[dustoff258]

Plus with dedicated servers i could throw up a few servers and make one a slow play server and the others fast or spped defcon.

I get real tired becuse some is hosting a game and starts to loose so he bails and ends the game for everyone. Then you spend 10 -15 mins trying to find another game becuse the list of servers with one person in it is endless.

[xander]

Personally, the only reason I see to have a dedicated server (aside from cheating) would be to eliminate the problem of hosts dropping. Let me offer another suggestion -- how possible would it be for games to be set up with a "master" server and a "slave" server. I am sure that the jargon I am using is incorrect, so let me explain what I mean:

When a game is started, the server is the host's machine. As long as the host stays in the game, he runs the server (which is how things stand now). However, if the host leaves, then one of the other player's machines becomes the servers. Basically, right now, the host's machine is the only one keeping track of everything, right? Well, perhaps each of the player machines should also keep track (or just one of them), and if there is a problem, the other machine can take over. A little redundancy never hurt, right?

xander

[Guest]

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:45 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, the only reason I see to have a dedicated server (aside from cheating) would be to eliminate the problem of hosts dropping.


How would having a dedicated server allow you to cheat ? I have servers up for a lot of games CSS ,DOD source .half life the ship rfactor ,etc. It just runs the code, no graphics etc no controls etc just running the stuff needed to host the game.

[MrBunsy]

When a game is started, the server is the host's machine. As long as the host stays in the game, he runs the server (which is how things stand now). However, if the host leaves, then one of the other player's machines becomes the servers. Basically, right now, the host's machine is the only one keeping track of everything, right? Well, perhaps each of the player machines should also keep track (or just one of them), and if there is a problem, the other machine can take over. A little redundancy never hurt, right?

xander

Host migrating? It's been done before, in some other game, but I can't remember which one. All I remember was someone suggested it for Worms, for precisely the same reasons as Defcon (hosts quitting). Someone else piped up with a game that had already done it, but searching through the Team17 forums I can't track it down.

The idea anyway was that if for any reason the server shut down the game would freeze as the server was transfered to a client (I presume every client kept a record of what was going on) which would then become the server. Pretty much the same thing, except I think anyone connected to the server could 'take over'. Mind, what with all the chaos of badly set up servers, a master-slave (or whatever you want to call it, server - backupserver) would be the only viable solution. You might even somehow be able combine it with a dedicated server or something. However, wouldn't that require re-writing significant amounts of the networking code?

[xander]

However, wouldn't that require re-writing significant amounts of the networking code?

Probably. I was just trying to come up with a comprimise solution to address the biggest problem that people have been having.

xander