ZK lobby server split is a disaster? - Page 4

ZK lobby server split is a disaster?

Various things about Spring that do not fit in any of the other forums listed below, including forum rules.

Moderator: Moderators

abma
Spring Developer
Posts: 3548
Joined: 01 Jun 2009, 00:08

Re: ZK lobby server split is a disaster?

Post by abma » 04 Feb 2015, 09:23

Licho wrote:Wut? Or are you referring to other ZK devs? I'm not involved in ongoing effort to improve engine performance for ZK, Hokomoko created the no lock lua branch and it's performance is on par with 91.0 that's all I know..
no, i mean licho, you. you brought the topic up, to fork spring a lot of times which is quiet frustrating. fork it or don't bring up the topic again.

+ full agree to http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.ph ... 51#p565651 my post is maybe to personally.
0 x

User avatar
1v0ry_k1ng
Posts: 4656
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24

Re: ZK lobby server split is a disaster?

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng » 04 Feb 2015, 09:31

drama singularity detected
0 x

User avatar
Licho
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3803
Joined: 19 May 2006, 19:13

Re: ZK lobby server split is a disaster?

Post by Licho » 04 Feb 2015, 09:32

re: Gajop

Well you can still see my tickets about forcejoin or scaling for thousands of people on issue list of uberserver, can't you? You know why it was requested?

Forcejoin was for matchmaking and matchmaking as implemented by ZK originally didn't require any protocol changes (because i really didn't expect them to be implemented in all clients) .. it only needed one working "forcejoin". It had a forcejoin implemented using forgemessage that worked fine for all lobbies, but instead this got deleted and replaced by implementation that needed lobby client changes, despite my protests.
Btw none of it was "taken away" you can still make matchmaking the way ZK did it last time - create battle and move people around.. if you can live with the fact that clients might randomly not join.

So whatever you relied on is still present, because nothing got removed.

I really don't understand what is the fuss here. Ok so ZKL connects to different server using different protocol (to which other lobbies can also connect if they implement that protocol in future)..

It solves ZK specific pains and concerns - relying on Nightwatch, and concerns about large player count bringing it down.

All other things are still up and working. All of this only happened after spring lobby server and site was moved out from what is now a ZK machine

And btw there was a short protocol discussion on etherpad announced in #zkdev.
0 x

abma
Spring Developer
Posts: 3548
Joined: 01 Jun 2009, 00:08

Re: ZK lobby server split is a disaster?

Post by abma » 04 Feb 2015, 09:39

Licho wrote:Forcejoin was for matchmaking and matchmaking as implemented by ZK originally didn't require any protocol changes (because i really didn't expect them to be implemented in all clients) .. it only needed one working "forcejoin". It had a forcejoin implemented using forgemessage that worked fine for all lobbies, but instead this got deleted and replaced by implementation that needed lobby client changes, despite my protests.
Btw none of it was "taken away" you can still make matchmaking the way ZK did it last time - create battle and move people around.. if you can live with the fact that clients might randomly not join.
the official command for exact this use-case was added a long time ago but not used:

https://github.com/spring/uberserver/co ... 0f63c1d0d6

i've removed the forgemessage command because it was insecure/not documented and requested zk to use the official command. you had enough time to fix it but didn't use the time to report issues / help to fix the problems.
I really don't understand what is the fuss here. Ok so ZKL connects to different server using different protocol (to which other lobbies can also connect if they implement that protocol in future)..
i can only warn people to not implement the zkl protocol as it will change without any notice like it did with a lot of services which got broken due recent changes.

again: only complains and NO contributions
Licho wrote:And btw there was a short protocol discussion on etherpad announced in #zkdev.
yeah, i guess you gave also a long time to allow others to give feedback as for the .net 4.5 update? was it 6 hours? it seems atm you are the only person who works full-time here.
0 x

User avatar
Licho
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3803
Joined: 19 May 2006, 19:13

Re: ZK lobby server split is a disaster?

Post by Licho » 04 Feb 2015, 09:48

again: only complains and NO contributions
Well isn't that natural? I was not maintaining uberserver, I'm not a python coder so I thought it's easier to report issues.

You also reported lots of ZK infra issues but I had absolutely no expectation of you fixing them, I was trying to fix them when time permitted..

Eventually it got to a point where I decided to "contribute" though I knew I would be breaking protocol. We decided to run a fork instead and last week I decided to contribute by rewriting it from scratch.

That's all there is.. all code is open source.. wan't to use it? Connect to it.
Worried about random changes of protocol in future? Fork it.
Don't want either? As you wish!
0 x

User avatar
Licho
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3803
Joined: 19 May 2006, 19:13

Re: ZK lobby server split is a disaster?

Post by Licho » 04 Feb 2015, 09:52

Indeed, I now have time to work full time and I wan't to take maximum advantage of it, bringing ZK to be steam ready ASAP before my IRL situation changes again.

Zero-K lobby will also be rewritten now...
0 x

abma
Spring Developer
Posts: 3548
Joined: 01 Jun 2009, 00:08

Re: ZK lobby server split is a disaster?

Post by abma » 04 Feb 2015, 09:54

Licho wrote:Well isn't that natural? I was not maintaining uberserver, I'm not a python coder so I thought it's easier to report issues.
yeah, but i got no help in finding the cause for the problems: https://github.com/ZeroK-RTS/Zero-K-Inf ... issues/249
0 x

User avatar
Licho
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3803
Joined: 19 May 2006, 19:13

Re: ZK lobby server split is a disaster?

Post by Licho » 04 Feb 2015, 10:00

Well I thought you understood it...basically in principle such command should not ask lobby client for permission.. It should send left battle and joined battle...
And issue was that if we didn't know *before hand* which client will listen and which not, we cannot do a matchmaking..
0 x

abma
Spring Developer
Posts: 3548
Joined: 01 Jun 2009, 00:08

Re: ZK lobby server split is a disaster?

Post by abma » 04 Feb 2015, 10:02

Licho wrote:Well I thought you understood it...basically in principle such command should not ask lobby client for permission.. It should send left battle and joined battle...
And issue was that if we didn't know *before hand* which client will listen and which not, we cannot do a matchmaking..
i didn't make the specification of the command, it was discussed / agreed in one of the lobby dev meetings. a change was discussed here, but ... yeah nothing happened: http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=32800

clients can always leave / disconnect, all the time. the command as it was, wasn't probably implemented. why did you complain about it before using it correctly?
0 x

User avatar
Licho
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3803
Joined: 19 May 2006, 19:13

Re: ZK lobby server split is a disaster?

Post by Licho » 04 Feb 2015, 10:14

ZK was using forcejoinbattle not forge for some time..
It did ignore forcejoin failed because it was too late .. it needed to know who will fail *before* sending forcejoin battle..
0 x

abma
Spring Developer
Posts: 3548
Joined: 01 Jun 2009, 00:08

Re: ZK lobby server split is a disaster?

Post by abma » 04 Feb 2015, 10:15

0 x

User avatar
Licho
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3803
Joined: 19 May 2006, 19:13

Re: ZK lobby server split is a disaster?

Post by Licho » 04 Feb 2015, 10:16

This is the "trivial" solution i had in mind
http://pastebin.com/5r8PwnD9
0 x

abma
Spring Developer
Posts: 3548
Joined: 01 Jun 2009, 00:08

Re: ZK lobby server split is a disaster?

Post by abma » 04 Feb 2015, 10:22

this discussion suddenly ended, no feedback from licho or others:
-> http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=32800
0 x

gajop
Moderator
Posts: 3023
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 20:42

Re: ZK lobby server split is a disaster?

Post by gajop » 04 Feb 2015, 11:33

Licho wrote: Well you can still see my tickets about forcejoin or scaling for thousands of people on issue list of uberserver, can't you? You know why it was requested?
So, why didn't you implement it? I kinda supported you on both.
Licho wrote: Forcejoin was for matchmaking and matchmaking as implemented by ZK originally didn't require any protocol changes (because i really didn't expect them to be implemented in all clients) .. it only needed one working "forcejoin". It had a forcejoin implemented using forgemessage that worked fine for all lobbies, but instead this got deleted and replaced by implementation that needed lobby client changes, despite my protests.
Btw none of it was "taken away" you can still make matchmaking the way ZK did it last time - create battle and move people around.. if you can live with the fact that clients might randomly not join.

So whatever you relied on is still present, because nothing got removed.
At this point I'd like a quote to what exactly got removed. Abma claims it wasn't, and that it's exactly as defined by the protocol (which was agreed by you and some other people which aren't active).

Also, the whole discussion between the two of us was whether or not matchmaking should have a server interface or not. That is, whether or not uberserver should support a number of commands used for MM, e.g.: JOINQUEUE, LEAVEQUEUE, READYCHECK, QUEUELIST, and so on. Your proposal was to avoid that, because you can do it by using bots and supply that instead for all Spring games. We could then build lobby clients against that bot communication protocol (which was never defined, as usual) and have MM in Spring.
The problem though is, bots are now gone, and with them, the functionality. That's the issue. We relied on bot functionality which is no longer present.
Licho wrote: And btw there was a short protocol discussion on etherpad announced in #zkdev.
Was anyone from Spring supposed to know about it, with a server split and no offline messages...?
This kinda reminds me how I had to find out you abandoned the lobby protocol by looking at the ZK site, with no information on springrts.
There’s no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department on Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now.
0 x

User avatar
PicassoCT
Journeywar Developer & Mapper
Posts: 10226
Joined: 24 Jan 2006, 21:12

Re: ZK lobby server split is a disaster?

Post by PicassoCT » 04 Feb 2015, 11:42

Remember the time i said, its your mother that is driving that relationship apart
-> http://www.yourmother.com
cause she is always remembering stuff and never forgives, neverg gonna give you up...
You cant always get what you want, but if you try, you get what you need.

Its somewhat ironic, everything is well engineered, but not the growing up process for projects.


Zero-K will never have a engine-team of its own, that wont cooperate with current engine-team. And so, yes, ultimately it will have to upgrade. After performance is restored.
Also yeah, there are some dependancys you cant resolve completely within reasonable amounts of work. Abusing them to apply pressure is wrong.

Also wrong to sneak out of testing the engine, its written in the social contract, that 1/10 of your guinea pigs (aka players) is to be brougth to your lands lord at full moon.
0 x

User avatar
1v0ry_k1ng
Posts: 4656
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24

Re: ZK lobby server split is a disaster?

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng » 04 Feb 2015, 11:56

There seems to be an inordinate amount of butthurt and time-consuming trawl of past conversation for evidence to feed a witch-hunt happening here.

Since the discussion this is happening in the General subforum where mortals may post, could someone please explain why Licho is being persecuted?

Requesting information is valid, but please be more careful not to aggravate issues with your posts, several of your recent posts are too close to the borderline of what is acceptable. (Silentwings.)
0 x

8611
XTA Developer
Posts: 242
Joined: 29 Dec 2014, 08:22

Re: ZK lobby server split is a disaster?

Post by 8611 » 04 Feb 2015, 17:52

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:By what criteria is the server split a disaster? ZK still works. Main spring server still works. Disaster therefore is?
The split is "just" bad, the disaster is how conflicts are handled.

Once again spring (or a spring mod) failed to recognize a problem and sleepwalks into doom.

The technical differences could maybe have been solved, if people had just talked to each other. But random snippets in chat/github/forums, hidden in threads...they can not even decide to use the same forum.
Tower of babel style.
Technically competent but not organized.

Once the split had happend no side took a step back to say "Wtf are we even doing here?"
Instead every action furthered the split and made it "more official." Yes, in some way these things (edits on wiki etc) are nessecary but it seems to be done so careless, without care how that further escalates and creates an "Us VS Them" mentality. (Some posts in this thread are overly fanboyish)
The people who make up ridiculous arguements about how the situation is actually an improvement are not helpful either.


To players, the problem was really bad communicated.
Even weeks later the only official statement is still this:
zK news wrote:Zero-K lobby server has been moved to a different machine.
Please restart Zero-K lobby twice (to force it's upgrade) or use address "lobby.zero-k.info" if you are using other lobby program than Zero-K
It was appearently expected that this message would also appear on spring-page, to players of other mods. (That this announcement did not work was just dumb luck!)
No explanations that there are now two servers.
It is obviously a touchy subject and THAT is how it is announced?
How about a bit more info, or really anything that makes it look less like a lame attempt to steal players?
Why no statement from "spring side"?
Instead banning players if they spectulate about what happend?
Anarchid wrote:I don't see this as a split of the dev community. I don't understand why people think that.
This whole situation is about lobby devs disagreeing over lobby protocol. One sides takes his toys and walks away to re-make things, how is that not a split?
0 x

abma
Spring Developer
Posts: 3548
Joined: 01 Jun 2009, 00:08

Re: ZK lobby server split is a disaster?

Post by abma » 04 Feb 2015, 18:08

8611 wrote:Why no statement from "spring side"?
what do you expect? "zk" decided to use their own server, what should "spring" announce?
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22298
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: ZK lobby server split is a disaster?

Post by smoth » 04 Feb 2015, 18:14

maybe he wants an internet fight? He is a new poster we don't know what what to expect from him. Unless this is knorke...
0 x

8611
XTA Developer
Posts: 242
Joined: 29 Dec 2014, 08:22

Re: ZK lobby server split is a disaster?

Post by 8611 » 04 Feb 2015, 18:16

For example. This thread is a question from a player who wondered what happend.
I doubt he is the only player who wondered why the zK rooms are gone? It is a big "event", people might be interessted to learn about it.
0 x

Locked

Return to “General Discussion”